 |
Bi-State Coordination Committee |
 |
Below is the meeting report for the Bi-State Coordination Committee meeting, held on Thursday, April 16, 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 Chair Metro Councilor Rex Burkholder at 7:30 a.m. at the Clark County Public Service Center 6th Floor Training Room, Vancouver, Washington. Those in attendance follow:
Committee Members Katy Brooks, Port of Vancouver Alternate
Rex Burkholder, Metro Councilor
Shirley Craddick, City of Gresham Councilor, Alternate
Jeff Hamm, C-TRAN Executive Director/CEO
Thayer Rorabaugh, City of Vancouver Alternate
Judy Shiprack, Multnomah County Commissioner
Jason Tell, ODOT Region 1 ManagerStaff and Interested Guests Ed Barnes, Vancouver Citizen
Kelly Betteridge, TriMet
Lynda David, RTC
Mark Harrington, RTC
Katherine Kelly, City of Gresham
Sharon Nasset, Portland Citizen
Philip Parker, Washington Transportation Commissioner
Troy Rayburn, Clark County
Ron Swaren, Portland Citizen
Mark Turpel, Metro
John Williams, Metro
Diane Workman, RTC
Sharon Zimmerman, WSDOTTHE NOVEMBER 20, 2008, MEETING REPORT WAS APPROVED AS WRITTEN. THAYER RORABAUGH ABSTAINED
Chair Burkholder said that Metro is in the process of updating their 50-year Regional Transportation Plan, which they are now calling “Making the Greatest Place.” They had first called it the Region 2040 Growth Concept. Chair Burkholder said they wanted to share it with the Bi-State Coordination Committee to discuss issues that span the river. They have been doing several different modeling scenarios of different land use patterns and different transportation investments. Chair Burkholder said all are invited to the forums that they have been having. Their fourth and final forum is on December 10th. They have been polling the people who have attended about the various scenarios. They have had good attendance with about 100 at each and about 30 of those being elected officials or agency heads. Mr. Burkholder said it has been interesting, because there is a direction that makes sense to most people in support. Mr. Burkholder noted the distributed handouts with the complete details listed, one with the land use investment scenarios and one with the transportation investment scenarios. These are based on their currently adopted Regional Transportation Plan. He said the next step is to mesh those two together with the components that people feel are important. Chair Burkholder introduced Kim Ellis who has been leading the Regional Transportation Plan update portion of this. Ted Reid has been doing the land use side of the analysis.
Kim Ellis said she would give an overview of the highlights that were raised at the Joint JPACT/MPACT meetings on October 22 and November 12. Ms. Ellis said the final meeting of the series is December 10, which is when they will be asking for some preliminary direction on moving forward in the next phase of the process. At the October 16 Bi-State meeting, Ms. Ellis said an overview was given of all of the different tracks in “Making the Greatest Place.” Today’s purpose is to learn more about the land uses and transportation investment scenarios analysis, identify bi-state policy implications, and discuss the Bi-State Committee’s role and participation. Ms. Ellis provided handouts of the Land Use and Investment Scenarios and the Transportation Investment Scenarios.
Several choices are being framed as part of the scenarios analysis for decisions that will be made next year for the Oregon side of the river. These include urban form, designating urban and rural reserves, what their transportation system should be to serve that growth, and also how to prioritize needed investments in order to achieve the best outcome. Key decisions ahead include: local and regional aspirations in the Urban Growth Report, Regional Transportation Plan and HCT Plan, Urban and Rural Reserves, Infrastructure and Investment Decisions, Comprehensive Plans, and Transportation System Plans.
Ms. Ellis said the scenario analysis that they conducted looked at some of the different possibilities and trade-offs of different choices both on the land use side and transportation. These include financial, political, environmental, community, and economic choices. They hope to look at what elements should be emphasized moving forward to develop a recommended land use and transportation strategy that better implements the 2040 Growth Concept vision and local aspirations.
In the land use scenarios, they looked at six different land use alternatives. She said the transportation system was held constant in each of the scenarios. The Reference Case scenario is the base of current plans and zoning, what is already in place and the current adopted Regional Transportation Plan that was approved December 2007. Ms. Ellis highlighted the five other scenarios: Tight UGB, Infrastructure funding delays, Corridor amenity investments, Center amenity investments, and Tight UGB with center amenity investments. She referred to the handout that illustrates some of the effects of the five scenarios with the change in new household density and location and the change in new job density and location (compared with the reference scenario).
The transportation scenarios had the reference scenario land use as the base assumption and the RTP financially constrained system and they added significant investment in connectivity, high capacity transit, throughways, and system management/tolls. There are scenarios with new highway bridges crossing the Columbia River at Rivergate and Camas as well as a range of scenarios that maximize highway, transit, and transportation demand management. One transportation finding relevant to the bi-state area was that “…while significant expansion of the road or highway system shows significant reductions in congestion and delay, the land use effect is to increase the demand for housing outside the UGB…..Households in neighboring communities will often have longer car commutes….”. Ms. Ellis noted with the throughway scenario in the east part of the region with the new Camas/Troutdale connection, there was significant amount of growth in that area due to the new crossing. There was a lot of employment in the Camas/Washougal area as well. The Tualatin/Sherwood area also attracted a lot of jobs relative to the other scenarios. In the connectivity scenario, with the new arterial connection between the Port of Vancouver and Rivergate, employment was attracted to that area.
Initial observations show that the 2040 Growth Concept works. All have strengths and unintended consequences. The scenarios suggest ways to better implement the plan. The choices made in Oregon effect the Washington portion of the region. The financial and political considerations all have different public agency implementation “leads” and potentially different funding sources. All require significant commitment and action. They analyzed greenhouse gas emissions both residential based and transportation based. The residential greenhouse gas emissions really remained constant across each of the scenarios. In terms of the air pollutants they are required to monitor, there is improvements in all of them from today, but they are still increasing. They found that infrastructure alone is not going to be sufficient to achieve the land use objectives. In looking at the economic considerations, they acknowledge a need for better measures to evaluate the broader effects to the region’s economy. They did see with arterial and throughway investments the most significant reduction in truck delay and better access to industry. Increased downtown and main street access and activity expected to support commerce and job creation. In general, focusing growth in centers and corridors cost less to serve both public and private. Spending less of household budgets on housing and transportation allows spending on other things.
Key questions they are looking at as they go forward into 2009 include: How do we measure success? What is the right mix of investments and strategies? How should limited dollars be prioritized?
Ms. Ellis said they have had a series of Technical Workshops with their land use and transportation technical advisory committee. There has been staff from RTC and Vancouver participating in those workshops. She said all are invited to participate. She asked Committee members if they had policy implications that they felt required further bi-state coordination. She also asked what elements should be emphasized as they move forward, and how the Bi-State Committee should be engaged and future coordination occur.
Chair Burkholder said this is a lot of information, and asked if members had any questions. Steve Stuart asked in the high capacity transit scenario, what assumptions were used on the model for the region, and if the HCT Study from Clark County was used. Ms. Ellis said yes, that the current adopted status was used. Mr. Lookingbill clarified that it was within the range of this kind of policy analysis. Andy Cotugno said for their side of the river, it has lots of light rail, several lines to Oregon City, and several lines to Damascus, etc.
Katy Brooks said that in all four of the scenarios, all show a decrease in jobs in the Port of Vancouver. Andy Cotugno said that is from the reverence case to the different scenarios, there would be less job growth in the Port of Vancouver. Jeff Hamm asked if that was job density, not number of jobs. Mr. Cotugno said it was both, so a decrease in actual jobs from the reference case. This shows 20 years out, based on current assumptions with these scenarios. Ted Reid said for all of the scenarios, they assume about 825,000 new jobs in the seven-county region by the year 2035. He said about 1/3 of them are coming to Clark County in the reference scenario. Katy Brooks said even with using the reference case, in the long run, the Port of Vancouver is losing jobs. Rex Burkholder said by 2035, there is a certain share of those 825,000 new jobs that is assumed to locate in Clark County. If they do different investment strategies, all of them show that not as many of those new jobs will locate there, but there will still be a lot of new jobs. Mr. Lookingbill clarified that these results are from these specific scenarios. Given different investments and opportunities, the outcome can become different. Mr. Burkholder said that he was surprised to find that adding the connection between the two ports actually moves jobs south of the river, relative to the reference case. He said these are unintended consequences or surprises.
Jeff Hamm asked Dean Lookingbill how they created the land use tight UGB scenario in Clark County. Mr. Lookingbill said Clark County’s reference scenario was the adopted GMA Plan that was used for 2030 and expanded out to 2035. Kim Ellis said that for the Clark County side, the land use scenario stayed constant, and they altered the assumptions on the Oregon side. So, the adopted Plan was what was assumed even with the tight UGB. It was where future urban growth boundaries for Metro are that was held tight. It was not restricting growth in Clark County. Mr. Lookingbill said what either side of the river does affects the other. He said one of the elements that might be looked is if some of those assumptions were fluctuated. They really held the Clark County side relative. Mr. Cotugno said they held the Clark County side constant in terms of what the Plan would be, but this shows that if they hold their UGB tight, that Plan will grow more. If on the other hand, they adopt the second set of amenities to try to attract growth towards their centers, it is going to draw that growth from other places, including Clark County. The same Plan in one case grows more, and the other case grows less given their actions. If they hold a tight UGB, they will push more towards Clark County; if they add more incentives to draw growth into their centers, they will draw from Clark County. Their actions cause the same Plan to be more or less growth. Mr. Lookingbill asked if that was more from the jobs side than the housing side. Mr. Cotugno said it affects both.
Chair Burkholder said what it comes down to is what this committee sees as critical issues. He asked if there were issues from the Washington side that they wanted further analysis on. He said as this goes forward, they want to get comments and concerns addressed. They are having a robust discussion with the Metro area people, and they want to keep Clark County involved as well. Mr. Lookingbill asked where this is going on the Oregon side. Mr. Burkholder said on the land use side, it is clear that there is a feeling that having an investment in their corridors and centers, improvements to attract business and housing is seen as a good strategy. It is desirable to concentrate development and economic activity centers. The tight UGB is favored because their infrastructure analysis says that development in new areas is about twice as expensive on the public side in terms of investment as it is in reinvesting in current areas. The best and smartest investment is to keep rebuilding the areas that they already have. That links in with HCT as well as bicycle/pedestrian improvements, to provide support for that. The caveat is that everyone likes the high capacity transit, but it is very expensive.
Royce Pollard said he thought that this was very ambitious, and he liked it. He said the question for the Clark County side is when we start providing input. He said we need to weigh in on our side. The idea of developing economic centers under the growth is something that the City of Vancouver believes in. Mayor Pollard noted the emphasis on attending the December 10 joint meeting. Rex Burkholder said having the Clark County people there and getting their perspective would be important, especially if this information could be reviewed prior to the meeting. Mayor Pollard said he thought that should be a goal for the Washington side of the river. He asked the time and location. Mr. Burkholder said it is Wednesday, December 10, 2008, 4:00-7:00 p.m. at the Convention Center. This is a joint JPACT/MPAC meeting. Mr. Lookingbill said this could be brought to the RTC Board in January or February to formulate what is good for us.
Jeff Hamm said one of the things they struggle with at C-TRAN is the allocation of resources to their express bus system and looking to the future. He said this effort may help inform them on that in the future. He asked if the throughway scenario included transit connections between less dense areas. Ms. Ellis said your implementation of the C TRAN and TriMet Transportation Investment Plans were assumed in the reference case for transit and carried through all of the scenarios but the HCT scenario, which they added other services. It is about a 1 ½ percent per year increase in transit service on the Oregon side. She said they did not look at trying to provide new transit connections beyond what is already called for in the long range plan. For the HCT scenario, on the Oregon side they assumed frequent bus on every major arterial in the region, which is a significant connection. It was trying to provide more of the suburban to urban connections that aren’t currently served by transit. Ms. Ellis said as they move forward, they can start looking at places that are not connected and should be or areas that bus service enhancements would help more ridership and support growth in those areas.
Chair Burkholder said they look forward to seeing everyone at the December 10 meeting.
Chair Burkholder noted that the Bi-State Coordination Committee meets every other time in the morning at RTC and in the evening at Metro. He asked if that was working for committee members, and they agreed that it worked well. It was decided to have the next meeting held on February 26, 2009, at Metro at 5:00 p.m.
Chair Burkholder said that he was not on the CRC Project Sponsors Council, but many of the Bi-State Committee members are. He asked if they should assume that bi-state issues are being dealt with through the Project Sponsors Council or if there were some issues that they wished to bring back to the Bi-State Coordination Committee, such as land use issues. Mayor Pollard said that he thought that if issues come up that appear to be something that the Bi-State Committee should have an opinion on, they should suggest that it come to them for review. Steve Stuart agreed and said that the Bi-State Committee is a broader group including the ports and transit. There were certain topics that would be good for discussion at the Bi-State Committee. An example would be the corridor analysis and tolling scenarios for different areas that are outside of the bridge influence area of the CRC, but are tied in with the discussions of the CRC. This would be a good avenue for that discussion. Mayor Pollard said he hoped that everyone would charge their staffs who are involved in the preparation of the meeting to be aware of that issue and keep their eyes open for things that they believe might be a candidate for coming before the Bi-State Committee for review.
Dean Lookingbill said an issue that he believed surfaced would be the issue of other bottlenecks on I-5, also, the idea of induced growth outside the urban growth area. Mr. Lookingbill said the issue of managed lanes in I-5 and or I-205. Steve Stuart said this addresses system management. He said this looks at things like ramp metering that Clark County does not do, but they are all over the Metro region. Those are things that we can look at and see the benefits and possible ways to better integrate the system.
Rex Burkholder said it seemed that the CRC is a subset of a major set of issues that we will be addressing. He said that they would see that if issues come up, they would bring them to the Bi-State Committee.
Katy Brooks said RTC would be doing a freight study for the first time in Clark County. She said there is obviously connectivity to the Portland metropolitan area. She said she thought that was relevant for the Bi-State Committee. She said also, if there is interest; provide an update on the Vancouver Y rail system, WSDOT’s project and passenger rail through that area and the City of Vancouver and Port of Vancouver pieces as well. This will free up some of the north/south and east/west capacity that affects both Portland and Vancouver. Steve Stuart agreed saying there are bi-state rail issues. He said he thought it would be good to work on the freight and economic ties in the bi-state region; why is it so important for the bi-state region to work in concert on freight mobility. He said for the CRC project as they are working on other issues, they will need to make a case to the Oregon legislature as well as the Washington legislature as to why our working together is so important. He thought that would be very valuable. Katy Brooks said that she could be contacted regarding the rail issues as well as Larry Paulson or WSDOT.
Jeff Hamm said that C-TRAN is going to be moving through an adoption of a 20-year plan next spring. He thought that would be good to bring to the Bi-State Committee in February or March to discuss the bi-state components.
Mr. Burkholder said the Oregon side of the river just did a Blue Ribbon Committee on Trails. He said he was a participant and it was very interesting. He said he would like to share this in terms of mobility strategies. He said it started out at looking at trails on a national area, but what it came down to was that we need to promote biking and walking a lot more in our communities, and they came out with a strategy to get there. Part of it was inspired by the Rails and Trails Conservancy effort to get 40 metropolitan areas in the country to get $50 million each in the next transportation bill. They have been doing a national effort to put in an application. There was interest by members to have this presented.
Mr. Burkholder also noted the issue of greenhouse gases is something that both Oregon and Washington are charged with. Steve Stuart agreed that was something that they need coordination on. He said he believed that their legislature would have a bill this year that would mandate that they integrate greenhouse gas emissions reductions as a part of their growth planning. He said if that passes, it would be April or May. Chair Burkholder said as these issues come up, they could bring them forward.
Another topic for discussion could be the Hayden Island Plan with changes foreseen on Hayden Island that are action dependent? on the CRC to go forward. This was of interest to members. Also, of interest is the City of Vancouver’s plan for downtown Vancouver in relation to the CRC project.
Doug Ficco said an issue that will be coming up at the Project Sponsors Council which is vital to Hayden Island and the City of Vancouver is the lane balance issue. Mr. Ficco said they will be presenting the Project Sponsors Council with data on December 5. This will be a big discussion with impacts to Hayden Island, Port of Portland, Port of Vancouver, and the City of Vancouver.
Jeff Hamm said RTC’s Corridor Visioning effort had a consultant talk about growth and where it happens, and the three main factors are policy, infrastructure, and the private sector, the market. He asked if it would be helpful to have someone from an investment community or real estate talk to the group about the future and how they see things in the region. It may be good later next year to bring someone in to see what they have in terms of the vision in the future. Mr. Burkholder said at their forums they had a presentation on ”What does the future hold?”. He said he missed it, but heard that it was really good. They had Chris Neilson with quite a different vision of the future in terms of the changing demographics and the demand for housing types and locations. Mr. Burkholder said they have his presentation on DVD and thought the committee should see it. He said he watched it, and found it interesting. It is actually supporting what they are trying to do. People’s taste is going for more compact development versus five to ten acre ranches.
Chair Burkholder said they would elect officers at the February meeting. He said they have a chair from one side of the river and a vice chair from the other side of the river.
Sharon Nasset of Portland said she was glad to hear the topic of heavy rail, and said it brings jobs to our region. She said New Starts dollars can go towards heavy rail, and a new bridge next to the old rail bridge going from Ridgefield into Swan Island. Ms. Nasset said that since we are not going to do light rail in the near future, we need to look at going for those dollars. Ms. Nasset said she feels the Project Sponsor Council needs to be an oversight committee, and that an oversight committee is needed to see that the process is followed correctly.
The next Bi-State Coordination Committee meeting is scheduled for February 26, 2009, at Metro at 5:00 p.m.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 a.m.
Dean Lookingbill
Transportation Director, RTC
360-397-6067Andy Cotugno
Transportation Director, Metro
503-797-1763
       
|