U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

90–576 PDF 2003

S. HRG. 108–212

TRANSPORTATION CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS

IN THE SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON/PORTLAND

METROPOLITAN REGION

HEARING

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

SPECIAL HEARING

AUGUST 13, 2003—VANCOUVER, WA

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate
(II)

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky

CONRAD BURNS, Montana

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont

TOM HARKIN, Iowa

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland

HARRY REID, Nevada

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin

PATTY MURRAY, Washington

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana

JAMES W. MORHARD, Staff Director

LISA SUTHERLAND, Deputy Staff Director

TERRENCE E. SAUVAIN, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT, AND

RELATED AGENCIES

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama, Chairman

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas

PATTY MURRAY, Washington

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland

HARRY REID, Nevada

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

Professional Staff

PAUL DOERRER

SHANNON HINES

LULA EDWARDS

PETER ROGOFF (Minority)

KATE HALLAHAN (Minority)

DIANA GOURLAY HAMILTON (Minority)

Administrative Support

MEAGHAN L. MCCARTHY (Minority)
(III)

CONTENTS

Page

Opening Statement of Senator Patty Murray ....................................................... 1

Statement of Senator Mark O. Hatfield, Former U.S. Senator From Oregon .... 4

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 9

Statement of Donald Wagner, Regional Administrator, Southwest Regional

Washington Department of Transportation ....................................................... 11

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 14

Statement of Bruce Warner, Director, Oregon Department of Transportation .. 18

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 21

Statement of Craig A. Pridemore, Chair, Clark County Board of Commissioners and President, Southwest Washington Regional Transportation

Council, Washington ............................................................................................ 26

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 28

Statement of Royce Pollard, Mayor of Vancouver, Washington and Board

for the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council, Washington .................................................................................................................... 30

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 32

Statement of Fred Hansen, General Manager, Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District (TRI-MET), Portland, Oregon ............................................... 33

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 36

Statement of Joseph Kalinowski, Director of Facilities, WaferTech ................... 42

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 43

Statement of Phillip Parker, Chairman, Southwest Washington Labor Roundtable ....................................................................................................................... 44

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 46

Statement of Glenn Vanselow, Executive Director, Pacific Northwest Waterways Association .................................................................................................. 47

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 48

Statement of Tom Zelenka, Chairman, Oregon Freight Advisory Committee

and Chair, Transportation Committee, Pacific Northwest International

Trade Association ................................................................................................. 50

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 52

Prepared Statement of Lynne Griffith, Executive Director/CEO, Clark County

Public Transportation Benefit Area Authority (C-TRAN) ................................ 59

Prepared Statement of Steve Clark, Chairman, Portland Business Alliance

Transportation Committee, and Gary Cardwell, Chairman, Pacific Northwest International Trade Association ................................................................. 60

Prepared Statement of the Transportation Investment Task Force ................... 62

Letter From Jim Howell .......................................................................................... 69

(1)

TRANSPORTATION CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS IN THE SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON/

PORTLAND METROPOLITAN REGION

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2003

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY AND

GENERAL GOVERNMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES,

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,

Vancouver, WA.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., at the Public Services Building, 1300 Franklin Street, Vancouver, Washington, Hon. Patty

Murray presiding.

Present: Senator Murray.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY

Senator MURRAY. Good morning, if we can have everyone come

in and sit down. We want to have this committee hearing started.

This committee hearing is called to order. And I want to say good

morning. Welcome all of you. I’m delighted to have so many people

here who are interested in the topic of transportation.

I’ve called this field hearing this morning of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury and General

Government to bring together the stakeholders to address the important transportation problems that are affecting the Southwest

Washington/Portland Metropolitan region. Today, in this hearing

we will examine current and future transportation challenges and

how our solutions can improve the economy, our safety, and our

quality of life.

This morning we’re going to be hearing from elected officials, regional representatives, along with labor and business interests. So

I want to thank all of the participants who are here and the witnesses for their testimony today. We, unfortunately, could not accommodate all of the leaders who wanted to be here today to testify

but we certainly do want input from anyone who would like to

share their thoughts with us.

So I will be keeping this committee record open of this hearing

for 15 days. And I know several groups and individuals, including

C-Tran, have additional opinions that they want included in the

committee record. So if anyone would like to submit a statement

or comments as part of these proceedings, please give them to my

staff, Kate Hallahan is one side, Dale Learn on the other. Make

sure they get your comments. And again, the record will be open

for 15 days for any additional comments from anyone.
2

I especially today want to thank Senator Mark Hatfield, who is

the former Chairman of the Full Appropriations Committee and

the Transportation Subcommittee, for taking time out of his schedule to be with us today and to testify. I think all of us know that

Senator Hatfield is uniquely qualified to speak to this region’s

transportation infrastructure. We have many transportation assets

here, and, frankly, most of them are the products of Senator Hatfield’s work. Whether it’s the Columbia River system or Portland’s

nationally recognized light rail system, these economic assets are

truly a legacy of his tremendous work. Senator Hatfield worked to

bring people together to address the current needs and plans for

the future. And we’ve all benefitted from his wise approach and it’s

one that I hope that we can follow today.

Let me begin by putting this hearing in context. Next month in

September in Washington, DC I will help write the Senate’s transportation appropriations bill. I’m going to use what I learn here

today to make sure that what we do in the Senate reflects the

needs and priorities here on the ground. We should all recognize

that it will not be possible to fund every request. In fact, the budget allocation for my subcommittee is already $300 million below

what the President has requested. And because resources are so

limited, I want to ensure that whatever we do, we are meeting the

region’s highest transportation priorities. The information that we

gather today will help me and the subcommittee assemble the Senate’s transportation budget for fiscal year 2004. In addition to the

appropriations bill, in the very near future, Congress is going to

update the 6-year Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act,

known as TEA–21.

I will be working on that along with Representatives Baird,

Blumenauer and DeFazio who are all on the House Transportation

and Infrastructure Committee and this region’s Senator Ron

Wyden, who sits on the highway authorizing committee, along with

Senator Gordon Smith from Oregon. Again, I want to ensure that

those Federal efforts meet the needs here from this community. So

please know that whether you’re testifying today or you’re submitting your comments next week, your input will help develop this

transportation bill that’s responsive to the needs of this region.

Let me highlight for all of us a few of the challenges that we are

going to examine today and touch on a few proposals. The Southwest Washington/Portland Metropolitan region has grown at a tremendous rate. Today 1.9 million people live here, but that number

is expected to grow to 2.4 million by the year 2020. That growth

is already straining the region’s transportation infrastructure. If

we do not improve this infrastructure soon we are going to see increased congestion across all modes of transportation. That will

have a painful impact on the region’s economy, productivity and

quality of life. Unless we act, the price of goods and services will

increase and we could lose jobs.

This region is one of the Nation’s most trade dependent and that

reliance on trade is increasing. For example, we expect import/export freight tonnage to increase 123 percent by 2020. Domestic

freight tonnage will increase by 76 percent. Currently Oregon and

Washington export $45 billion in products every year. As a percentage of our region’s economy, that is about twice the national aver-
3

age. Of course, the region has several major deep-water seaports,

a large international airport, significant upriver barging on the Columbia River, two transcontinental rail lines and extensive industrial space.

Overall, there is enormous potential for growth and for economic

development. However, without significant planning and investment, the already congested freeways, rail lines, seaports, and airports will become even more backed up. For example, on the I–5

Columbia River corridor we can expect vehicle traffic to increase by

44 percent by 2020. Unless we act the peak congestion period

which today lasts 4 hours will expand to 10 hours. Truck routes on

I–5 corridor would see the annual vehicle hours of delay soar by

93 percent. We would see similar congestion problems at our seaports, at our rail yards and other important highways like I–205,

and the impact would extend far beyond the region itself.

This area is home to some of the Nation’s most significant lumber, wood, and paper industries. Six Washington and Oregon counties ranked among the top ten wheat growing counties in the entire

Nation. They rely on safe, reliable, and efficient rail and barge

transportation. We know that the world’s grain markets are extremely competitive. If the rail links to our Columbia River ports

are not efficient, then American growers will lose out.

Other important industries in the region depend on reliable, efficient transportation such as farm and food products, distribution

and warehousing and hi-tech companies. Intel, for example, is one

of the world’s largest microchip manufacturers, and is Oregon’s

largest private employer. Without a cost effective means of shipping their products to PDX, costs would increase and we could lose

jobs.

So in every transportation mode and every regional industry

we’ve got to take the right steps now to address this coming growth

and that is why we’re holding this hearing today in Vancouver.

Wise transportation investments will improve our economy, our

productivity, and our quality of life.

Before I turn to our first witness, I want to note that we do have

a very strong partnership and record of success that we can build

on. This region and the two States are already taking innovative

steps to deal with congestion, which I look forward to learning

more about today. The two State departments of transportation,

local and regionally elected officials, planning organizations, business, labor on both sides of our river have come together to analyze, discuss, and plan our regional transportation solutions. The

Federal Government will be a partner in helping the Southwest

Washington-Portland Metropolitan region.

As the former chairman and now ranking member of the subcommittee, I’ve been very proud to fund projects on both sides of

this river. Many of you worked on the I–5 Columbia River Corridor

Improvement Study. It received over $7 million in Federal funding.

Several highway projects on I–205, I–5 and the roads feeding these

highways have received Federal earmarks. Transit projects run by

C-Tran and Tri-Met have received funding. In fact, the interstate

MAX light rail system has received over $130 million over the last

2 years. Portland International, the seaports and other marine
4

safety programs have also received support from my subcommittee

recently.

So we do have a record of progress to build on today. And I especially today want to thank and praise the work of our State governments. Despite extremely tight budget periods for both of our

States, they have stepped up to the plate and dedicated billions of

dollars to infrastructure improvements. I want to end by saying

that everyone in this room has a role to play in improving the economic viability and the livability of this region, and I am looking

forward to working with all of you.

With that, I want to welcome our first panelist, Senator Hatfield,

if you want to come up to the witness table. Senator Hatfield, it

is really an honor to have you here. I should say Mr. Chairman.

That’s how I needed to address him in Washington, DC when he

was there, Mr. Chairman. He is the former chairman of the full

Senate Appropriations Committee and the Transportation Subcommittee that I’m now ranking member on. And I know that his

tremendous experience and his understanding is going to be very

helpful to our work. His wisdom and his insight on how this region

has solved difficult issues in the past I think will help set the right

stage today.

So, Senator Hatfield, thank you so much for joining us. We look

forward to your testimony and appreciate you very much for being

here today. Senator Hatfield.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARK O. HATFIELD, FORMER U.S. SENATOR

FROM OREGON

Senator HATFIELD. Thank you, Senator Murray. Senator Murray,

I’m going to just put my testimony in the record as if given and

proceed to highlight. And when I heard that from witnesses in the

past I used to cringe because they usually took longer if they would

have just stopped and read it instead of just ad-libbing their highlights.

Senator MURRAY. That’s his first piece of advice for us.

Senator HATFIELD. I’m delighted to be here with you in this role.

I’m glad you mentioned the kind of collaboration and the kind of

support, working relationships you have with our Oregon delegation and relating to our Oregon projects. Which reminds me of a

little incident, to illustrate this matter of regionalism. In 1980,

Senator Warren Magnuson had asked me to come to Seattle to deliver a farewell address as he was leaving the Senate after many

years of great service. And I told a story that Senator Magnuson,

when I went on the Appropriations Committee as a junior member,

took me aside and explained to me that there was a very basic

principal that he liked to exercise on the Appropriations Committee, and that is, ‘‘What is good for Washington is good for Oregon.’’ Then he would proceed to allocate and he’d say, ‘‘One for you

and two for me.’’

So in the Seattle speech I recall the fact that whatever I knew

because I was going to succeed Senator Magnuson as the chairman

of the Appropriations Committee that year of 1980 was the switch

in the party’s control of the Senate, I said I have learned from the

master. I’ve been at the feet of the master, Senator Warren Magnuson. And so, therefore, I’m going to take his cue from years of expe-
5

rience and just remind the folk of Seattle and Washington, ‘‘That

what is good for Oregon is good for Washington.’’ ‘‘Two for me and

one for you’’ to kind of catch up.

If I had a simple theme today to share with you it would be that

with seniority, moving back and forth across borders and so forth,

that the necessity today is even greater than in the past, perhaps,

to understand that we have to work, collaborate, cooperate and

plan together for the Great Northwest. We have a $350 billion

economy between our two States and over 5 million people that are

employed in that economy. And with the economy, as it is today,

it’s all the more reason we pay attention to what impacts on our

economy of the Northwest. But there are other things that draw us

together in the Northwest far beyond just the political cooperation

that we can exhibit, and that is we are tied together in an energy

sense by the Bonneville Power Administration, and we also are tied

together in even the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals being a part

of this Great Northwest. I mention that because sometimes we

have not really understood the necessity of working together.

I recall just a moment of Oregon history. We became a State in

1859. Washington State and Montana together did not become

States until 30 years later in 1889. Idaho another year, 1890. Now,

in the meantime, Portland really felt pretty smug about the fact

that it was the center of the Northwest, population, economics. We

had two rail heads tying this country together east/west before Seattle had one. We had the river as almost a monopoly of transportation and moving the goods, services and so forth. We had the

coastal transportation from California, the whole access was San

Francisco, Portland. And so, consequently, the Portland business

community and political people and others began to feel, you know,

that’s a nice country up there in the territory of Washington, but

we’re the State. We’re the one that has the center of commerce, and

particularly transportation. And we had worked hard for that because we found that New York bankers weren’t interested in funding our rail program out here north/south, or our river program, or

our coastal programs of water transportation. And we finally found

the funding out of the German bankers in Germany. But we had

reached out to the international world to show the importance of

this area of the world to them to cause them to want to invest in

transportation.

I only mention that to illustrate how easy it is to feel like the

world centers around even within our States. We face today, like

most States, an urban/rural division. If you take the politics, you

take the economics, it’s centered in a tri-county area of Oregon, as

far as the State of Oregon is concerned, Washington County, Multnomah County, and Clackamas County population. I suppose you

could say three-fourths of the population that votes is in Eugene

to Portland, under 25, one valley out of the whole State of Oregon.

And the people of Eastern Oregon really understand that. As a consequence, this transportation that we talk about in the I–5, in the

river, and all the other transportation, air, is really a unifying factor if we want to look at it that way. What good is the Port of Portland if it doesn’t have the products to ship out, and those products

come from Eastern Oregon. What good is it to raise the products

in Eastern Oregon if they don’t have an access to the market.
6

So as Senator Smith has often said that the river unites and the

mountains divide, but it’s all the more important for us to understand that we have a unit called State of Oregon, and a unit called

the State of Washington and we’d better start looking at how we

make all of those people within our respective States feel a part of

the whole. And as we do that within the State and then as between

the States, and our governors having the bi-State committee of

planning and all these other wonderful organizations that have

shown the ability to cross the borders and work together. Even our

great Columbia River Gorge with it’s bi-State commission. We see

there again the opportunity to unite the region.

I think one other thing I would like to mention about this, is that

when there was a great dependence upon the mid-Western wheat

and other grains going down the Mississippi River, out through the

mouth, down through the canal, out through the oceans to Asia because there were not competitive rail rates to bring that grain west

and out the mouth of the Columbia River.

And as this delegation of Oregon and Washington and Idaho and

Montana working together putting the pressure on the rails to get

competitive rail rates, we find that this so-called transportation

goes beyond even Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana. It goes

into the Dakotas, it goes into Minnesota and all of the mid-Western

States that export grains and other commodities. We’re seeing an

increasing dependence upon that part of the country to get their

products out into the markets, particularly of Asia. Japan being

our largest trading partner.

So again, I just want to emphasize that in 1981 when I did become the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I invited the

northwestern States to put together in a collaborative planned way

what we needed to do in transportation to enhance the transportation, to make it grow, to make it a vital part of the world picture

of trade. And that was also an opportunity to demonstrate that

Senator Magnuson, who had set this very carefully crafted program

of being as much an expert on Oregon needs as he was on Washington needs, that I, too, must become a chairman that had concern

as much for the needs of Washington State, Idaho, Montana, this

great region that is united by the Columbia River.

I think also it is of an international import as well in the sense

that we are providing for our country one of the very prosperous

ports and when you look at balance of trade picture, it is not too

happy a picture. And we’d better realize that we can be then contributing to the national and international economics.

I don’t see this as a pork-barrel program as oftentimes our critics

have mentioned that the appropriators are pork barrellers. Used to

say ‘‘it’s not pork it’s beef. It’s much better than pork.’’ But anyway,

I’m just so grateful for your leadership in the transportation field.

And as I say, I am happy to respond to questions. And thank you

for giving me more than 5 minutes.

Senator MURRAY. I would always give you more than 5 minutes.

And again, Mr. Chairman, you just have to understand, to me he

was Mr. Chairman. I know to you he is Senator, but Mr. Chairman, it really is an honor to have you here. And I appreciate that

broad look at what we need to be doing and why it is so important

to this region. You’ve been involved in government here and in
7

transportation issues for a long time. Can you give us the benefit

of how you have seen the transportation profile of this region

change over the years?

Senator HATFIELD. I could go over a lot of years to tell you the

answer to that question. Growing up on the railroad, my father

having been a boxsmith for 42 years and riding a pass, I was very

much oriented in my life development to the rail, and then to the

highway, and then to the air and to the water. I would say that

the things that have changed so much is the tremendous growth

that’s been exploding. It’s an explosive growth. And as an example,

the bridge that unites the two States. Let’s use that as an example.

A number of years ago we’d had a couple of shakes, earth shakes

in the Portland area and you had in the Washington State. And we

put together a program to do an analysis of Portland as it related

to seismic character, and we found where the weakest parts and

the stronger parts. And we found that our library, our wonderful

public library was in the weakest area. And it was the weak construction. And as a consequence we did a profile of the City of Portland, and we replaced the library through a rebuilding program because of that seismic mapping. We also tried to do the I–5 because

it is not only a vulnerability here in these bridges, but you go down

to California and beyond, every bridge across those rivers we found

had to have an analysis. How much could they withstand, what do

we have to retrofit in order to strengthen them. And I think things

of that kind become illustrative of the vitality of our

transportational system, water and highway and rail. But we have

lost in this program, perhaps, I think too much a focus—we haven’t

put enough focus on rail.

You remember that under a previous administration there were

corridors designated by the Secretary of Transportation, and we secured out of the cooperation of the delegation from Washington

State and Oregon, Vancouver, British Columbia to Eugene, Oregon,

as one of those rail corridors that could be upgraded for fast rail,

goods and services. And, frankly, as I look at the terrain out from

our side of the river south we go into farmlands, we go into the

flatlands. You have much more geographic diversity coming from

Seattle to Vancouver area, and you have much more population.

But we have wide open spaces. We could have enhanced and really

started that fast rail corridor. Unfortunately, we didn’t. And it

seems to me instead of looking at more farmland going into more

highway expansion—and it may be necessary, I’m not making a

judgment—I’m just saying if I had my druthers, if I had my pick,

I would say enhance the rail north/south rather than taking more

land into the I–5 corridor. Nevertheless, we have to look at all options. But those are some of the changes and I think that rail still

stands out there as a potential that we have not fully given our priority to and that would be one such.

I think water is another. Remember, energywise water is the

most efficient, then comes the rail, and then comes the highways,

the last, and then the airports. And I think we ought to have an

energy factor in all of the analyses we make of our highway planning. What is the impact requirement of energy in those plans, and

what are the alternatives? What are the options?
8

Senator MURRAY. Very good. And when you were chairman of the

Transportation Subcommittee, you, like I, received numerous requests from all different levels. How much did you encourage local

decision making and look to those local decisions as you made your

decisions about what you would fund?

Senator HATFIELD. I think it’s like a structure, that’s the foundation. If we don’t have the local support it’s going to be difficult. As

you know in the Appropriations Committee, every State has a list

of its desires and wants, and therefore when we did not have the

local support for the north/south rail, light rail, we lost out. We

could have had the money for that on a 75/25 matching basis, not

on a 50/50, which it would be now. But we incorporated that

project as a three-part project, west, east—or east, west and then

the north/south. We had to have Clark County; we had to have the

three counties, Multnomah, Washington, and Clackamas, but we

failed to get that support from those local people. Now, that’s an

illustration in my book on how important it is to have those local

people. That’s one example but there are others.

I think also they have to feel like it’s not a gift of the Federal

Government and which they just have to take what the Federal

Government has decided. We have competent people. You have in

this room today far greater experts than I on transportation of this

area. You have metros, you have light rails, you have all of these

transportation, inland waterways. And these are the real experts,

and they are part of that local, in my view, local support that is

mandatory in order to have something succeed in the Appropriations Committee. Because we are not going to settle those local arguments in the Appropriations Committee. If they can’t settle them

in their own communities, don’t come to us because we can just go

down the list and find some other State that has settled them and

give the money there instead of trying to force the money. Remember we never force the money on any community. It has to be with

their welcome and the State and the region.

Senator MURRAY. Wise words again. We’re running out of time,

but I do want to ask you one important question that I think we

are all trying to comprehend. You’ve had many successes in

projects that you’ve championed and were able to bring funds home

for the Portland’s Metropolitan MAX light rail. I think it’s a 39-

mile line now that runs and 102 bus routes and has a tremendous

impact on the region. In looking at projects like these now they

have such tremendous costs and we have a Federal budget that is

very difficult to deal with, we have State budgets that are extremely tight, local communities don’t have these funds. Are we

going to have to look at innovative new ways of funding transportation projects? And, if you think so, what ways should we be looking at?

Senator HATFIELD. We always get to the vulgar subject of money,

don’t we. That’s our job. Or it was mine. Yours now. I would only

say I think this is where we have to really prove the mathematics.

I think we have to prove it, as I said, let’s use the energy factor.

What is the most energy-efficient in our projects and have we chosen the most energy-efficient. I think we have to realize also that

it has to be productive and have a cost-benefit ratio like we have

in the Corps of Engineers on a water project. Cost-benefit ratio.
9

How much does it cost? How much revenue is it going to produce?

And really figure the fine points of money invested, money reproduced, or money as an investment returned. And I think sometimes

we haven’t given that care we should have given in order to say,

well, we have the most cost-effective, we have the most efficient,

we have the most fundamental as far as producing revenues and

returns for our investments than they have in Mississippi for that

particular project. That we in the Northwest, because we grew up

in an area and we’ve worked in an area that the Federal Government has a very fundamental ownership and we have had the

water projects that had to prove they’re cost effective and they costbenefit ratio, we have all that background, but had we applied it

in the same vigor that we could have for our competitive transportation projects, I’m not sure. I’m not—I don’t remember that we got

into those details because we depended a lot more on our status

and our seniority to get our projects. And it seems to me now that

cost is such an important factor to be considered for any Federal

participation in anything. We’ve got to go back to the drawing

board and to the math of it and prove our case superior.

Senator MURRAY. I would agree. I would just say that we have

to also take into account regional impacts. When you’re looking at

cost effectiveness it’s fairly easy to build a system in a landlocked

area, and many of our areas where we have to do cross water; we

have to deal with energy; we have to deal with different modes of

transportation and water—bodies of water that other regions don’t.

We don’t want to get into a position where we’re being pitted

against a city that may be able to cheaply put in light rail where

it could be very expensive because of our geography. But I appreciate your words.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Mr. Chairman, I thank you so much for coming today. I thank

you on behalf of all of us in this region for your tremendous legacy

and for your willingness to travel here today to share with us a few

thoughts this morning and I thank you so much.

Senator HATFIELD. Any day you call I respond. Thank you.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK O. HATFIELD

Thank you Senator Murray for inviting me to participate in this morning’s discussion about transportation challenges facing the Portland-Vancouver region. It is an

honor to be back before the Committee on which I served for many years. You are

a leader on transportation issues in the United States Senate and an unyielding advocate for the Pacific Northwest. At a time when the Northwest does not enjoy the

seniority that it once had, we in Oregon appreciate your willingness to work with

our Senators to support important transportation projects throughout the region.

There are many hard working elected officials and transportation experts here

today that are far more capable of covering today’s topic than I am, so I will keep

my comments brief. As someone who has dealt with transportation issues at the

State and Federal level for many years, perhaps I can offer a perspective that will

be of some interest.

I’d like to share with you two observations. The first observation that I will make

is that the Portland-Vancouver region is an intermodal hub and international gateway for trade. The second is that the region has a long history of using innovation

and collaboration to overcome transportation challenges.

We have as a region made progress on many fronts but there is still work to be

done to finish what was started years ago, and to address future needs. I am sure

that those transportation leaders who will come before this panel today will speak
10

to how they intend to address and overcome the transportation challenges we currently face—and I leave that work in their good hands.

The Portland-Vancouver region is an intermodal hub and a gateway to international trade. This region is located at the center of a transportation crossroad. We

sit at the convergence of two interstate highways, two Class One Railroads and two

major waterways. Like the hub of a wheel, this region is connected to other States

in the Pacific Northwest, the rest of the Nation and overseas markets by transportation corridors, or spokes. These corridors move people and freight by highway,

rail, air and water. Freight and passengers moving north/south and east/west pass

through this region.

Not far from where we are meeting today, the Columbia River carries grain and

other bulk products to and from America’s Heartland to our ports—our gateways to

foreign markets. The main highway connecting eastern Oregon farms to markets,

Interstate 84 passes through here. Two transcontinental railroads, carrying passengers and freight between the western States and between the United States and

Canada cross the river here. The Portland International Airport, which links us to

the rest of the country and Europe, sits on the bank of the Columbia River. The

Interstate 5 Corridor, which carries international and national freight movements

traveling north and south, connects the United States, Canada and Mexico, and the

communities of Portland and Vancouver.

Trade is vital to both States’ economies. Transportation underpins the $350 billion

economy of Oregon and Washington and the region’s 5.5 million jobs. Simply put,

the economy of our region as well as the Pacific Northwest as a whole is dependent

on trade. Much of the freight traffic upon which the region’s economy depends travels through the Portland-Vancouver I–5 crossing. Congestion along this shared

transportation choke point is eroding the reliability of moving goods and services in

the Pacific Northwest and is reducing the economic well being of business and industry.

To state the obvious—failure to maintain and improve the transportation system

for moving freight will no doubt result in the region’s economy becoming less competitive.

As noted earlier, the region’s goods and services also move by ship and barge on

our waterways. The Columbia River navigation channel is a critical piece of the

transportation infrastructure. Each year, ocean-going vessels on the Columbia River

transport roughly $13 billion worth of U.S. products to world markets (primarily to

Asia). Critical to sustaining this economic activity is the need for a 40-foot deep Columbia River navigation channel.

Much like highways, railroads, bridges and airports, navigation channels must be

improved. Deepening the channel is critical to our region in order to handle our

ever-growing trade demands and enable today’s modern fleet of deep-draft ships to

continue transporting imports and exports by way of the Columbia River.

To further highlight the importance of this effort and how it relates to international trade activities and relations—let me quickly focus on how this links in

with our relationship with Japan.

Japan is the largest trade partner with the Columbia-Snake River region. More

than 300 Oregon companies imported or exported cargo to/from Japan via Port of

Portland facilities. In 2002, $7.1 billion worth of merchandise was imported from

Japan and $2.4 billion was exported to Japan via the Columbia-Snake River Customs District.

The threads that bind us on this project do indeed have local, State, national and

international significance. As one who has participated in this critical discourse over

the years, let me now thank you for your support of the appropriations necessary

to build this project.

Let me now turn to how our region approaches transportation challenges. The

Portland-Vancouver region has a long history of employing innovation and collaboration to overcome transportation challenges.

In 1981 I challenged the State and Region to maintain their cooperative and collaborative relationship by clearly identifying priorities that could be the focus of the

appropriations committee’s actions. What followed was an exemplary partnership

that has identified transportation priorities, collaborated on funding, devised both

innovative projects as well as methods to fund them and that have lasted to this

day as a model of cooperation and progress. Quickly, let me share with you some

of the innovative aspects of the Portland Region’s success in transportation:

The Banfield Project.—This is not simply a Light Rail Project. The $321 million

project opened in 1986 was also a complete rebuilding of Interstate 84 from the

Lloyd Center area all the way to the Gateway District’s intersection with I–205. In

1982 the Region asked the Chairman of this committee for help in declaring the entire undertaking a ‘‘Transitway’’ under Federal law making it eligible to receive the
11

flexible funds authorized by the Interstate Withdrawal program as discretionary appropriations under contract with the Federal Transit administration (at the time

known as UMTA, Urban Mass Transportation Administration). This enabled the

highway improvements as well as the new rail line to be constructed and finished

together.

A recent example of a successful innovative approach is the Airport Light Rail

project in Portland. This project was a transportation innovation from the outset because of its use of private investment funds and its non-reliance on the Federal Government for any funds. The nearly 6-mile rail line was built with local public money

and private sector funds.

The Oregon Department of Transportation quite frankly helped the Transit District, TriMet, directly by providing Congestion Management Air Quality (CMAQ)

funds, which it had at its disposal for the district’s ongoing bus procurement program. This enabled the District to make a sizeable allocation of its funds to the Airport project, and to keep that project totally under local control.

Much of the credit for these successful innovative approaches needs to go to the

manner in which the State of Oregon through ODOT and the State of Washington,

through WASHDOT and the local governments in the Portland area through

METRO cooperate in the functioning of the Portland area Metropolitan Planning

Organization (MPO). This has become a cooperative and deliberative body in which

representatives of both States and of both Vancouver area and Portland area local

governments sit.

Many disagreements, some of them quite intense, surface at this body. But its

members have truly disciplined themselves to come to agreement and to speak with

one voice when the decisions are made.

These are just some of the region’s transportation success stories. While there are

may others, the region also faces many challenges. I view two challenges—completing the build out of MAX light rail and improving rail service—as finishing what

was started. In addition, we face the new challenge of ensuring that the Nation’s

aging transportation system can adequately move freight and people in a safe and

efficient manner. These issues are more than transportation challenges, at their

very core they are economic in nature. They will help define who we are, and chart

the course for our future.

Let me end by saying—and saying it with confidence, that the capacity to deal

with these many challenges resides in those present in this room today.

Again, Madame Chair and Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity.

Senator MURRAY. Thank you. We will now bring our second

panel forward. Don Wagner, who is the Regional Administrator

Southwest Regional Washington Department of Transportation,

and Bruce Warner, who is the Director of the Oregon Department

of Transportation. I would just let everyone in the audience know,

again, of our time constraints this morning. Each of our panelists

will be given five minutes for their prepared remarks. We will then

have some Q and A from here, and then move to our next panel.

I will again say for anyone in the audience who hears something

that they would like to respond to, the record will be open so that

you can submit your testimony and your comments afterwards.

But, again, thank you to all of you for participating today. We will

begin this morning with Mr. Wagner. If you want to start with

your prepared remarks. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF DONALD WAGNER, REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR,

SOUTHWEST REGIONAL WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Mr. WAGNER. Thank you. Good morning, Senator Murray. I’m

Don Wagner and I’m the Southwest Regional Administrator for the

Washington Department of Transportation. I think I will take Senator Hatfield’s advice and I will read my comments to make sure

that we get them done timely.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee to discuss the transportation challenges facing the com-
12

munities of Southwest Washington and the Washington/Oregon

border region, and thank you for your strong interest, and past assistance, in addressing our transportation challenges.

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge Commissioner Ed

Barnes, a local resident and representative of the Washington

State Transportation Commission since 1996. He’s in the audience

today. I would also like to thank you for including local officials

and representatives from the business and labor communities, as

well as Mr. Bruce Warner, the Director of the Oregon Department

of Transportation, at this hearing. It is our view as it is yours that

our region’s transportation challenges will be best addressed by a

broad and collaborative coalition of interests.

This morning I will frame the challenges associated with the

highway and rail crossings of the Columbia River, while Mr. Warner will focus his testimony on the efforts underway to address

these issues and the opportunities to meet our needs and maintain

economic prosperity in the region.

I have three things I would like you to remember from this

morning’s hearing. The Columbia River is both a transportation artery and a choke point. Second is today the I–5 corridor has inadequate capacity to carry both rail and highway freight. And lastly,

if this region is going to continue to be relevant in world trade we

need increased capacity across the river.

Interstate 5 and other regional Columbia River crossings form a

multimodal trade corridor of national significance. Highway and

rail crossings provide critical freight connections to the area’s

major ports for deep water shipping and upriver barging. They link

two transcontinental rail lines and connect much of the region’s industrial land.

I–5 directly serves regional and State economies in Oregon,

Washington and California. And it is the north/south backbone for

regional trade. Reliable transportation is key to Pacific Northwest’s

trade dependent character. Oregon and Washington export $45 billion in product each year. As a percentage of the region’s economy

this is about twice the national average. In fact, Washington is the

most trade-oriented State in the Nation, and 54 percent of our

economy is built on transportation intensive industries. About half

of the rail shipments originating from Seattle/Tacoma area travel

south through Portland/Vancouver in route to their final destination.

The geography of the Pacific Northwest defines the regional

transportation system. The Columbia River deep water ports provide access to the West Coast and Pacific Rim. And the Columbia/

Snake River system provides barge access to the agricultural areas

in the eastern half of our region. The river crossings are strategically important to freight transportation locally, regionally and

across the Pacific Northwest.

But the Columbia River is also a barrier to land-based transportation and combined with growing congestion, the river and its

crossings effectively serve as transportation choke points.

As depicted in attachment 1 of the information that I’ve earlier

provided, the Portland/Vancouver area has fewer crossings than

other U.S. metropolitan areas of similar size with only two highway

bridges and one rail bridge over the river. With limited existing
13

bridge capacity, few alternative routes and growing travel demand,

the crossings are major bottlenecks.

Congestion is the cost of doing business, but the severity with

which we are experiencing it limits economic competitiveness in the

global markets and crucial economic expansion. It will become a

even greater drag on our economy as the region grows and travel

demands increase. Freight movement into and out of our region

historically leads to increased business and employment growth,

but it is sensitive to congestion.

Unfortunately, freight shipping from Southeast and Southern

Asia is already being rerouted to the East Coast and mid-West

market distribution points to avoid this West Coast choke point.

Freight rail traffic is disproportionately affected by this choke

point. The Portland/Vancouver rail network and the Columbia rail

crossings also are severely congested. This network is one of the

busiest in the Nation with over 160 trains moving within and

through this region each day. When measured in terms of delay per

train, rail congestion in the Portland/Vancouver area is twice that

of Chicago, the Nation’s largest rail hub.

One of the causes of this congestion is inadequate river crossing

capacity. The rail system cannot handle projected growth in freight

and passenger traffic. Without increased capacity worsening congestion will make supply chains less reliable, drive up the cost of

labor and materials and undermine the competitive position of this

region and the Pacific Northwest businesses. Railroads may not

grow at the pace of the economy and will shed freights to trucks

thereby adding to the already congested highway. Efficient freight

rail helps reduce heavy truck traffic and congestion on the highways and provide a competitive shipping option for both regional

and international farmers and businesses.

The Washington and Oregon Departments of Transportation

have analyzed these economic issues in considerable depth. Of significant value is the 2003 report by Cambridge Systematics entitled

Regional Economic Effects of the I–5 Corridor/Columbia River

Crossing Transportation Choke Points. This report is available on

ODOT’s website and is included in the executive summary that I

provided to your office.

For this report, case studies were developed for five freight-intensive industries that, combined, comprises greater than 30 percent

of Washington and Oregon’s gross regional product, and account for

70 percent of the trucks and 60 percent of the rail tonnage crossing

the Columbia. These five industries are natural resource products,

transportation equipment and steel, farm and food products, high

technology and distribution and warehousing.

The case studies demonstrate the economic effects of this critical

nature of these transportation choke points. I invite you to review

the documents provided today illustrating how congestion at river

crossings shrink these industry markets, reduce operating efficiency and lower profitability.

PREPARED STATEMENT

In closing, we have a positive choice for the future. The choice

is to improve the highway and rail crossings of the Columbia River

and make a greater distribution for the economic vitality of the Pa-
14

cific Northwest. We have made progress in this direction. Mr. Warner will expand on these shortly. I emphasize that the solutions

will take time. As we weather economic recession, involve stakeholders, complete studies and acquisitions and build the improvements, I am confident that with your help the region can provide

the critical capacity and manage our growth to keep the Pacific

Northwest relevant in world trade. Together we can strengthen the

economy and maintain the quality of life of the upcoming generations. Thank you.

Senator MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. Wagner.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DONALD WAGNER

Good morning, Chairman Murray and members of the subcommittee. I am Don

Wagner and I am the Southwest Regional Administrator for the Washington State

Department of Transportation.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee to discuss

transportation challenges facing the communities of Southwest Washington and the

Oregon/Washington Border region. And thank you for your strong interest, and past

assistance, in addressing our transportation challenges.

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge the attendance of Ed Barnes, a local

resident and representative on the Washington State Transportation Commission

since 1996. I’d also like to thank you for including local officials and representatives

from the business and labor community, as well as the Director of the Oregon Department of Transportation, at this hearing because our view is that our region’s

transportation challenges will be best addressed by a broad and collaborative coalition of interests.

This morning I will frame these challenges, while Bruce Warner will focus his testimony on efforts underway to address these issues and summarize the opportunities to move this regional infrastructure into the future—to meet our needs and

maintain economic prosperity in the region and in our two States.

INTERSTATE 5 AND REGIONAL COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSINGS FORM A MULTIMODAL TRADE

CORRIDOR OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE

The Columbia River highway and rail crossings connect the communities of Portland and Vancouver for work, recreation, shopping, and entertainment. They provide critical freight connections to the area’s two major and numerous other ports

for deep-water shipping and up-river barging. They link its two east-west transcontinental rail lines and connect much of the region’s industrial land.

Interstate 5 is the only continuous highway from Mexico to Canada on the West

Coast and directly serves regional and State economies in Washington, Oregon, and

California. Within the Portland-Vancouver metropolitan area, I–5 is the north-south

backbone of regional trade, providing primary access to regional warehousing and

distribution facilities.

The Portland-Vancouver region’s proximity to two interstate highways, I–5 and I–

84, makes overnight truck delivery north into British Columbia, east to Idaho and

western Montana and south into the Bay Area possible. As a result, the region

serves as the Pacific Northwest domestic distribution location for many retailers and

manufacturers.

For these and other reasons, Congress recognized I–5’s national significance and

economic importance in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA–

21) by designating it as a High Priority Corridor. In TEA–21, Congress directed

USDOT to conduct a review of National Highway System freight connectors that

serve major seaports, airports, and major intermodal terminals. The bulk of these

connectors in Washington and Oregon feed the interstate.

EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION IS ESSENTIAL TO OUR ECONOMY

Reliable transportation is essential as the Pacific Northwest’s trade-dependent

character continues to grow. Oregon and Washington export $45 billion of products

each year. As a percentage of the region’s economy, this is about twice the national

average. Portland has the highest value of wholesale trade per capita on the West

Coast and the region ranks thirteenth among all U.S. cities based on the value of

exports. Exports make up the vast majority of the region’s traded volume, exceeding
15

the volume of imports by a factor of 15. In fact, Washington is the most trade-oriented State in the Nation.

The Portland-Vancouver area and the Pacific Northwest can expect freight volumes to grow at rates faster than the national average. Between 1998 and 2020 import-export freight tonnage is forecast to grow 123 percent and domestic freight tonnage 76 percent. While this will benefit economic growth, it will put a strain on the

State’s network of rail, highways, and water modes of freight transport.

In addition, the region’s economy is built on transportation-intensive industries.

Agriculture, construction, transportation equipment and utilities, wholesale and retail trade, and manufacturing make up 54 percent of the Oregon-Washington economy, but only 49 percent of the national economy. Consequently, our economy is

more dependent on transportation and we spend more proportionally on transportation than the Nation as a whole.

The Columbia River crossings, including the I–5 Interstate Bridge, are a critical

link in this trade network. To illustrate:

—About half of rail shipments originating from Seattle-Tacoma travel south

through Portland-Vancouver en route to their final destination.

—About 133 million bushels of wheat grown in Eastern Washington and Oregon

are shipped through the corridor for export to foreign markets.

—More than 10,000 trucks per day travel through the corridor.

THE COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSINGS ARE TRANSPORTATION CHOKE POINTS AND THREATEN

THE ECONOMIC VITALITY OF THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST

The Columbia River is a major regional transportation artery and the physical geography of the Pacific Northwest defines the regional transportation system. The

deepwater ports provide access to the West Coast and Pacific Rim, and the Columbia/Snake River system provides barge access to the agricultural areas in the eastern half of the region. The highway and rail crossings over the river are of strategic

importance to freight transportation, locally and regionally and across the Pacific

Northwest.

But the Columbia also is a major barrier and, combined with growing congestion,

the river and its crossings effectively serve as transportation choke points. The regional economy and the ability to effectively support freight movement are choked

and languishing.

Let me provide a local example:

The duration of peak-period congestion at the I–5/Interstate Bridge will double

from 4 hours today to nearly 10 hours in 2020. The congestion will spread into the

midday period, the peak travel time for trucks. This will entangle truck operations,

increase trucking costs, and make pick-up and delivery times less reliable. This will

increase the cost of delay to trucks by 140 percent—from $14 million in 2000 to $34

million in 2020.

If we do nothing, traffic volume on the Interstate Bridge will grow to 180,000 vehicles per day, an increase of 44 percent. If no significant capacity is added to the

bridge crossing, total vehicle hours of delay during the peak periods will increase

74 percent from 31,00 hours per day in 2000 to 54,000 hours per day in 2020. Congested lane miles on truck routes will increase by 58 percent.

FEWER OPTIONS EXIST IN THIS CORRIDOR

As depicted in Attachment 1, the Portland-Vancouver area has fewer crossings

than several U.S. metropolitan areas of similar size, with only two highway bridges

and one rail bridge over the Columbia River. With limited bridge capacity, few alternative routes, and growing travel demand, the crossings have become major traffic

bottlenecks.

While once an alternative to the Interstate Bridge the eight-lane Glenn Jackson

Bridge, which carries I–205 across the Columbia River 6 miles up river, now operates near capacity. The bridge carries 132,000 vehicles, including 7,800 trucks,

across the river each day. Growing congestion, due in part to diverted traffic from

I–5, is diminishing this route’s reliability and predictability. As the Glenn Jackson

Bridge reaches capacity, it will discourage diversion of I–5 traffic resulting in increased peak-period spreading within the I–5 corridor. The next closest Columbia

River highway crossing is the two-lane bridge between Rainier, Oregon and Longview, Washington, 53 miles downstream; it provides little relief to the metropolitan

area.

CONGESTION IMPACTS THE ECONOMY IN DIVERSE WAYS

Delays at the crossings affect a wide range of transportation users, including employees commuting to work, customers traveling to stores and business meetings,
16

shippers meeting schedules, truck picking up and delivering goods, and trains moving freight to and from ports and intermodal terminals.

The costs of delay are passed on to businesses, either directly or indirectly, by:

—Increasing production costs due to delay, unreliable travel times, and increased

logistics and inventory costs.

—Shrinking labor pools as the geographical area in which potential employees can

afford to work, or are willing to work, is reduced in relation to the increase in

time and cost of commuting.

—Reducing access to business inputs and markets as the economies of scale that

can be realized by operating in large urban areas are diminished.

Congestion is a cost of doing business but the severity with which we are experiencing it in this region is leading to a reduction in productivity, which in turn limits

economic competitiveness and curtails economic expansion. It will become an even

greater drag on the economy in the future as the region grows and the demand for

travel increases. It is weakening our competitiveness in global markets.

TRADE AND LAND USE ARE SENSITIVE TO THIS CONGESTION

As stated earlier, trade comprises a significant share of our regional economy.

Freight movements into and out of the regional have historically led to increased

business and employment growth, with the result that today the Portland-Vancouver metropolitan area plays a leading role among regional distribution and

transshipment centers for international commerce.

Here is a local example:

While the volume of exports is still dominated by the natural resources sector, the

high-technology sector now makes up the majority of the value of exported goods.

The value of high-tech goods that cross the Interstate Bridge exceeds $1.5 billion

per year.

Because high-tech goods are valuable, light, and time-sensitive, they tend to be

shipped by airfreight rather than by sea. This has led to a dramatic increase in airfreight shipments, which has created a greater demand for timely access to the airport. Portland International Airport is primarily accessed by the congested interstates, I–5 and I–205. This demonstrates that growing and maintaining a strong regional economy is increasingly dependent on an efficient transportation system.

We are learning that shipping routes from Southeast and Southern Asia are rerouting to East Coast and Midwest market distribution points to avoid this West

Coast choke point.

An additional economic consequence of this choke point to the region is the access

to available industrial land. The region is currently short of industrial property

available for development. Development potential of two of the region’s key industrial enclaves, the Port of Vancouver and the Columbia Corridor/Rivergate area in

north Portland, is threatened by the heavy congestion at their access points to I–

5 near the Columbia River.

RAIL FREIGHT TRAFFIC IS DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECTED BY THIS CONGESTION

The Portland/Vancouver rail network and the Columbia River Rail Crossing also

are severely congested. This network is one of the busiest in the Nation, with over

160 trains moving within and through the region each day. Currently, two transcontinental railroads, Amtrak long distance trains, and the regional Amtrak Cascades use the network. The two-track Burlington Northern-Santa Fe rail bridge, adjacent to the Interstate Bridge, is the only rail crossing connecting Portland and

Vancouver. The rail bridge carries 63 freight trains daily. The next major rail crossing of the river is 92 miles upstream near The Dalles, Oregon.

The cause of congestion in the rail system is inadequate capacity. It will not be

able to handle projected growth in freight and passenger traffic. On each side of the

Columbia River, trains already compete for track space with local and long-distance,

transcontinental trains moving to rail yards and terminals. Local operations—the

movement of locomotives and cars between yards and trains into and out of port

and railroad terminals—must share track time and space with long-distance,

through trains, including intermodal trains traveling from Seattle and Tacoma to

the Midwest and California.

When measured in terms of delay per train, rail congestion in the Portland-Vancouver area adds about 40 minutes to every train move, twice that of Chicago, the

Nation’s largest rail hub. With less than one-fifth the number of trains as Chicago,

the area’s rail network experiences nearly half the delay hours of Chicago. That’s

402 hours of delay for 600 freight and passenger trains in this area compared to

813 hours for about 3,500 trains in Chicago.
17

Without increased rail capacity, worsening congestion will make supply chains

less reliable, drive up the cost of labor and materials and undermine the competitive

position of the Pacific Northwest businesses. Railroads may not grow apace with the

economy and might shed freight to trucks, adding to already congested highways.

Shipping costs may increase, reliability will decrease, and rail shippers may be

forced to divert traffic, change modes, or relocate. Limited rail capacity will hinder

the growth of the ports of Portland, Vancouver, and others along the Columbia.

The recent I–5 Rail Capacity Study, completed as part of the overall I–5 Transportation and Trade Partnership Strategic Plan, highlights the rail needs for the region. Some relatively low- to medium-cost solutions—estimated at $170 million—can

significantly improve existing rail capacity in the region.

To accommodate through trains and local terminal operations efficiently, the railroads must invest heavily in new yard capacity, sidings, bypass tracks, switches,

and dispatching systems within our region. The railroads will soon need to look at

investing in an expanded rail bridge across the Columbia River or a rail bypass of

the Portland-Vancouver area for through trains.

In the long-term, major improvements will be needed to accommodate rail movements in the Portland/Vancouver region, including modifications to the existing Columbia River rail bridge and possibly a new span running parallel to the existing

structure. These improvements will require further analysis by the railroads, and

the Washington and Oregon Departments of Transportation.

FREIGHT OFFERS OPPORTUNITIES TO REDUCE CONGESTION

Freight rail makes up the smallest share of the total freight moved, but it has

perhaps the greatest likelihood for expansion. Since 1970, approximately 40 percent

of WA’s active rail lines have been abandoned. While this loss increased heavy truck

traffic on State and local roads, resulting in higher road maintenance and repair

costs, the remaining rail lines help reduce heavy truck traffic and congestion on

highways and provide a competitive shipping option for regional and international

farmers and businesses.

Preservation of remaining rail lines is crucial.

One of the key projects for the region—the Vancouver Rail Project—was recently

funded by the State of Washington and is slated for construction in the 2007–09 biennium. The primary purpose of the project is to support Amtrak Cascades service

reliability and expansion, with an important secondary benefit to the region’s rail

freight mobility.

WE ARE PUTTING IT ALL ON PAPER

The Washington and Oregon Departments of Transportation have analyzed these

economic issues in considerable depth. Of significant value to today’s actions is a

recent report by Cambridge Systematic, Inc., entitled Regional Economic Effects of

the I–5 Corridor/Columbia River Crossing Transportation Choke Points. The report

is available on ODOT’s Web site and the executive summary is provided today as

Attachment 2.

In addition to looking at effects on the regional economy as a whole, case studies

were developed for five freight-intensive industries that, combined, comprises greater than 30 percent of the Washington/Oregon gross regional product. These five industries—natural resource products, transportation equipment and steel, farm and

food products, high technology, and distribution and warehousing—account for 70

percent of truck and 60 percent of rail tonnage crossing the Columbia River in the

area.

The case studies demonstrate the general economic affects I have described and

the critical nature of these transportation choke points. I invite you to review the

documentation provided today, illustrating how I–5/Columbia River crossing congestion is shrinking these industry’s markets, reducing operating efficiency, and lowering profitability.

OUTLOOK

We are seeing diminishing returns from transportation initiatives of earlier decades. Capacity and congestion problems today are eroding the productivity of the

trans system Congestion at the crossings has a real and immediate cost to PortlandVancouver residents and businesses and there is a real cost, although less visible,

to residents and businesses beyond the region and across the Nation.
18

WE HAVE POSITIVE CHOICES FOR THE FUTURE

That choice is to improve the highway and rail crossings in this region and make

a greater contribution to the economic health of the entire Pacific Northwest.

We have made progress in this direction and Bruce Warner will expound upon

this shortly.

In closing, I will emphasize that the solutions and ideas summarized by Mr. Warner, will take time, as we weather an economic recession and involve stakeholders,

complete studies and acquisitions and build the improvements. I am confident, that

with the help of these stakeholders and elected officials, and industry and the citizens of the Pacific Northwest, the region can provide the capacity and manage this

growth and change. Together we can strengthen our economy and quality of life for

the coming generations.

Thank you.

Senator MURRAY. Mr. Warner.

STATEMENT OF BRUCE WARNER, DIRECTOR, OREGON DEPARTMENT

OF TRANSPORTATION

Mr. WARNER. Good morning, Senator Murray. I’m Bruce Warner.

I am the Director of the Oregon Department of Transportation. I

also want to thank you for giving me this opportunity to come testify before you this morning on some of the transportation challenges facing the region. And you do have my testimony, so I will

highlight some of the important pieces there.

I am going to focus my remarks on what I think is the single

greatest transportation challenge that faces the Portland/Vancouver region, and that is the growing congestion and the freight

bottlenecks that Mr. Wagner talked about in the Interstate 5 corridor. And I believe you know that Interstate 5 corridor is a corridor of true national significance, recognized by Congress and it is

a multimodal corridor that has many modes of transportation that

need to be addressed.

As you just heard, the growing congestion in this corridor does

threaten the region’s economy and the movement of freight. And

with your help I want to let you know that this region is developing solutions to overcome this threat. And through a collaborative public process, we have identified transportation improvements that are needed to relieve the highway and rail congestion

in this critical corridor. And I want to let you know we will be talking with you and asking for additional help from your committee

in coming years. And what I really want to assure you is that we

have been working in a way to build a solid foundation—in answer

to your question to Senator Hatfield—to make sure that there’s a

consensus from the local level on what needs to be done. And I do

want to thank you for your strong support in the efforts that we’ve

been doing. And because of that the National Corridor Planning

Development Program funding that we received with your help and

the help of both the other Washington and Oregon Congressional

delegation has really been instrumental to moving this along.

And this region has been working to solve the problem in ways

that are different from other areas of the Nation. And I say that

because we have done that collaborative inclusive, but public process that identified multimodal solutions to the corridor. And we’re

also, as you identified, going to be looking at ways to fund this in

an innovative manner because we know that the needs are great,

and we are going to have to look at innovative solutions and involve the private sector probably in ways we never have before to
19

get the solutions implemented in this corridor. And I think this approach is in contrast to other States where the normal answer is

to just add highway capacity as the simple and frankly only answer. And we know that the highway widening in this corridor does

not solve all of the problems, and we partnered with many different

groups in our efforts. We’ve taken their opinions into account. And

so far the work to date has involved almost 2000 people and the

list is growing daily.

And the report that you have in your packet, the I–5 Transportation and Trade Partnership Strategic Plan has been adopted I

want to stress to you by Metro, on the Oregon side, Southwest

Washington Regional Transportation Council here on the Washington side, Tri-Met, C-Tran, our transportation commissions, the

Washington State transportation commissions, the Ports of Portland and Vancouver, the City of Portland, the City of Vancouver,

Multnomah County and Clark County as an example. And this all

began in 1999 when a group of business folks and elected folks said

we need to solve the congestion in this corridor. It resulted in the

governors 2 years later appointing a committee of 28 businesses,

citizens and interested groups to come up with a strategic plan,

which you have before you. It took nearly a year and a half of

meetings. And I want to commend all the members who sat

through the monthly probably 4- or 5-hour long meetings to come

up with the solution. But that 2000 strategic plan is the result of

that effort.

And this year, as you just heard, we’ve also now completed the

Economic Impact Analysis and the study did conclude that the congestion in the I–5 Columbia River crossings was affecting, as you

heard, not only the Portland/Vancouver area business and industry

by increasing their shipping costs, limiting their labor markets and

reducing competitiveness with other industries in the region, but it

does impact the entire West Coast and the Nation as a whole. It

really is that significant a corridor. And so I think that’s important

to know. And I’m really pleased that the Federal Government has

been an active partner in this effort, the Congress, and the U.S.

Department of Transportation have supported this project from the

inception. And as I noted earlier, Congress has designated the I–

5 corridor as national significant—as of national significance in

1997 which made it available for the funding that we’ve been working on. And with the $7 million that you noted in your opening remarks, that we have completed this planning process and that’s

where we are today.

So we have the initial planning done. We’ve completed the economic impact analysis and we now have a final strategic plan

adopted. And now our job is to move forward and figure out which

of the specific improvements we need to work on right now and

where the priorities are and to start moving into the environmental

analysis and actually preliminary designs.

Some of the questions—to give you a flavor of some of the questions that we need to have answered are, as an example, should

a new freeway bridge be built or should an existing I–5 bridge be

modified. Or if we build a new bridge should it be a joint highway

like rail bridge or should we be building two separate bridges.
20

Again, another very big issue is how do we minimize the impacts

on the neighborhoods, and then how do we upgrade some of the

current interchanges to provide access to the Ports of Portland, and

the Port of Vancouver, just to add a few. But we’re scoping that out

and are ready to get into that effort right now. As I said, we’re

going to have to build a financing plan which will involve some innovative things that have not been put together before. We need

to actually have good construction estimates and time lines, and we

need to consider the options for managing that work in a different

way, when you have to keep an artery like I–5 open to commerce

at the same time you’re trying to improve it.

So with additional funding we can get to those, so it is needed.

We’re going to be asking you for assistance. I want to let you know

that Senators Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith have submitted a

joint request for planning dollars as part of the 2004 transportation

appropriations bill to pay for this next phase of this project. We believe a half million dollars at minimum is necessary and any additional would help speed this up. Federal money will also be needed

to complete the environmental impact statement to build on the actual strategic plan that you have before you. And Congressman Earl Blumenauer has submitted a $15 million

TEA–21 high priority project request to the House Transportation

and Infrastructure Committee as part of a joint effort with Congressman Brian Baird. And Congressman Baird is also working

very hard, I wanted to let you know, to secure Federal funding to

construct one of the first priority projects, which is the widening

of I–5 between Delta Park and Lombard Street on the Oregon side,

and he has submitted a $32.8 million project request to that committee for consideration. And this is a project, if you’re not aware,

is a project that is a great source of aggravation for Washington

commuters and it has been for a number of years, so I’ll make you

aware, and everybody in the room here, that we are supportive of

that and want to see that move forward as quickly as possible.

So in conclusion, we have made significant progress with the

help of this committee and our delegations and with our U.S. Department of Transportation and other regional partners. We understand the importance of doing our homework and want to assure

you that when we bring forward a project it will be a project that

has been vetted fully at the local level and has the grass-roots and

total support of the governments in the area. And we do need to

have a project that is broadly supported and serves many needs or

it’s not going to be successful.

PREPARED STATEMENT

The importance of this agreement can’t be understated. Senator

Hatfield said it and said it very well. So I think I would end there,

but I wanted to leave you also in your packet. I couldn’t go on without noting that the other thing about the transportation system

here on the West Coast, it’s fairly young, but I point out to you the

interstate system is about 50 years old in most areas and we have

a problem in Oregon with bridges that were built during that era

that are starting to fail. They were designed for 50 years and,

guess what? They’re starting to fail at 50 years. And the bottom

line is we have about a $5 billion problem just to address the
21

bridges in Oregon. The good news is our legislature stepped up. I

want to acknowledge the governor and our legislature for passing

a $2.5 billion program to address bridges and some modernization

needs, but that only starts to address the problem. So we are going

to be probably talking to you and your committee about some of

those needs here in Washington. So with that, I will conclude and

be glad to answer any questions that you might have.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRUCE WARNER

Good morning Senator Murray and Members of the subcommittee. I am Bruce

Warner and I am the Director of the Oregon Department of Transportation. Thank

you for this opportunity to briefly discuss the transportation challenges facing this

region. I will focus my remarks on the single greatest transportation challenge that

faces the Portland-Vancouver region: congestion in the Interstate 5 Corridor.

The I–5 Corridor is a true multimodal trade corridor of national significance.

Growing congestion in the corridor threatens the movement of freight and the region’s economy. With the support of this Committee, the House and Senate authorizing Committees, the Washington and Oregon Congressional Delegations and the

U.S. Department of Transportation, this region is developing innovative solutions to

overcome this threat. Through a collaborative, public process, we have identified

transportation improvements needed to relieve highway and rail congestion in this

critical corridor. There is much more work to be done, and we will be requesting

additional help from this Committee in the coming years. We have a solid foundation upon which to build.

Before I begin my remarks on our approach to this difficult challenge and our future needs, I want to first thank you and the Committee for your strong support

of this effort. The National Corridor Planning and Development Program funding

that we have received, with your help and the help of both Washington and Oregon’s Congressional Delegations, has been instrumental in bringing people to the

table. It has given us the ability to analyze a wide range of options and provide local

decision-makers and the public with good information, which leads to more inclusive

and better decisions. I think it is significant and worth pointing out that this effort

has received funding under both Republican and Democratic Administrations and

has strong bipartisan support in Congress.

This region is working to solve the problem of congestion in ways that are different from what others may be doing elsewhere in the country. We have established a collaborative, inclusive public process that is identifying multimodal transportation improvements needed to relieve highway and rail congestion in this corridor. Further, we are going to explore innovative financing and contracting options

in the next phase of project development.

This approach is in stark contrast to a traditional State highway department approach, where added highway capacity is the simple and only answer. These types

of projects are rushed through design and the environmental process, and the public

is given minimal chances to participate in developing the project. Then Congress is

asked to pay for a project that solves only a part of the problem and ignores other

needs in the corridor.

In our work on the I–5 Corridor, we took the time to examine many different options, and we have partnered with many different groups and individuals to ensure

that we make decisions that take into account many different needs. So far, more

than 1,700 people—citizens, local elected officials and business leaders—have been

involved in this effort. They have attended meetings, participated in workshops and

surveys and provided numerous comments. A Web site developed to inform the public and receive feedback on our plans is used extensively and already has been

accessed more than 400,000 times. Presentations have been made to more than 70

groups on both sides of the Columbia River, and the list is growing.

The I–5 Transportation and Trade Partnership Strategic Plan has been adopted

by Metro, the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council, Tri-Met, CTran, the Oregon Transportation Commission, the Washington State Transportation

Commission, the Port of Portland, the Port of Vancouver, the City of Portland, the

City of Vancouver, Multnomah County and Clark County. We have been very busy.

Our work began in 1999, when, in response to increasing concerns about congestion, a bistate committee was formed to consider the problems in the I–5 Corridor.

The committee found that doing nothing to solve congestion in the I–5 Corridor was

unacceptable. It recommended that the Portland-Vancouver region initiate a public
22

process to develop a transportation solution for the I–5 Corridor that addresses all

modes of transportation.

Two years later, the Governors of Washington and Oregon initiated the Portland/

Vancouver I–5 Transportation and Trade Partnership. A 28-member task force comprised of community, business and elected representatives was appointed by the

Governors and set up to guide the development of a strategic plan for the corridor.

This group worked with stakeholders and sought input directly from the community

for a year and half. The result was adoption in 2002 of a Final Strategic Plan.

This year an economic study was completed. The study concluded that congestion

at the I–5/Columbia River crossings was affecting Portland-Vancouver area business

and industry by increasing shipping and production costs, shrinking labor markets

and reducing the competitiveness of these industries in regional markets. Further

increases in shipping costs would cause Oregon and Washington businesses to lose

market share and profitability.

My colleague, Mr. Wagner, has already discussed the results of this study, so I

will not go into great detail. However, the findings of just how far the impacts of

the I–5 bottleneck are felt beyond the Portland-Vancouver region were very surprising. For example, about half of rail shipments originating from Seattle-Tacoma

travel south through Portland-Vancouver on the way to their final destinations.

About 133 million bushels of wheat grown in eastern Washington and Oregon are

shipped through the corridor for export to foreign markets. The study showed that

congestion in the corridor affects not only the Portland-Vancouver area but also the

economies of Oregon, Washington, the West Coast and the Nation.

I am pleased that the Federal Government has been an active partner in this effort. Congress and the U.S. Department of Transportation have supported this

project from its inception. Congress designated I–5 a corridor of national significance in 1997, making it eligible for funding under TEA–21’s National Corridor

Planning and Development Program. Since then, more than $7 million of Federal

funding has been awarded to this project to help pay for the planning phase of this

project.

This brings us to where we are today. The initial planning work has been completed, the economic impacts quantified and the Final Strategic Plan adopted. Now

we must now determine the best package of specific corridor improvements included

in the recommendations to move into environmental analysis and preliminary engineering. Some of the questions that need to be answered include:

—Should a new freeway bridge be built or should the existing I–5 bridge be modified?

—Should the new bridge be a joint use freeway/light rail bridge or should two new

bridges be built?

—How do we minimize impacts to existing neighborhoods?

—How do we upgrade current interchanges to improve access into and out of the

Port of Vancouver and the Port of Portland?

During this phase of the project, we also must develop a finance plan, estimate

costs and construction timelines, and consider options for managing the construction

and operation of the project.

Additional Federal funding is needed to perform this work. Oregon’s Senators Ron

Wyden and Gordon Smith have submitted a joint request for National Corridor

Planning and Development funding as part of the Fiscal Year 2004 Transportation

appropriations bill to help pay for this phase of the project. A minimum of $500,000

is needed, but more funding would speed things considerably.

Federal funding also will be needed to complete an Environmental Impact Statement. Congressman Earl Blumenauer has submitted a $15 million TEA–21 High

Priority Project funding request to the House Transportation and Infrastructure

Committee as part of a joint effort with Congressman Brian Baird. Congressman

Baird is also working hard to secure Federal funding to construct the first project

ready to go in the corridor—widening I–5 between Delta Park and Lombard. He has

submitted a $32.8 million project request to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. This project needs to be done as quickly as possible to address

a bottleneck that impacts thousands of Washington commuters every day.

In conclusion, we have made significant progress with help from this Committee,

the Oregon and Washington Congressional Delegations, the U.S. Department of

Transportation and our regional partners. The Federal funds we have received have

been put to good use. And with your continued support, we will be able to begin

the environmental and preliminary engineering work that will lead us to the improvements in the I–5 Corridor that are needed to keep Pacific Northwest businesses competitive and communities livable.

We understand the importance of doing our homework, of putting in the time and

energy now so that when we are ready to ask the Federal Government for signifi-
23

cant financial assistance to build the improvements that are so desperately needed

in this corridor, we will have a project that is broadly supported and serves many

needs. There is bistate consensus on the needed improvements in the corridor. The

importance of this agreement cannot be overstated.

Lastly, I hope the Committee has an opportunity to read the bridge report that

I’ve submitted with my written testimony. Although not the focus of today’s hearing,

the State is facing a $4.7 billion deficient bridge problem that is beginning to impact

the movement of freight statewide. The Oregon Legislature passed and the Governor recently signed into law a $2.5 billion funding package that will help, but not

alleviate, the problem. We will be working closely with our Congressional Delegation

to secure Federal funding for Oregon’s bridges when TEA–21 is reauthorized.

Again, thank you for this opportunity to be here today. I would be happy to answer any questions.

Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much, Mr. Warner, and to both

of you for taking time out today to bring these issues to the committee.

Senator Hatfield talked a lot about rail. Mr. Warner, you mentioned it in your testimony as well and I think you mentioned the

$45 billion of products every year that make this region one of the

most trade dependent in the entire country. We expect huge

growth, as I said in my opening remarks, in import/export freight

tonnage by 2020 and domestic freight tonnage. The grain producers

in Eastern Oregon and Eastern Washington rely on a reliable and

efficient rail system to move their products to domestic and overseas markets.

Can you, both of you describe to me what specific rail improvements you see as critical to growing our freight rail capacity and

what assistance the States you represent have provided to the existing rail infrastructure.

Mr. WAGNER. I’ll start and thank you for the question. The rail

system in the State of Washington certainly we are focusing primarily on the I–5 corridor on the high speed rail. In our last legislative session we did pass the what we call the nickel package for

new funding and in that it included over a hundred million dollars

of State funds to improve two track sections, one in the Kelso area

around Martin’s Bluff, and one here in Vancouver, the Vancouver

rail project. Those are the first steps and quite honestly, the least

expensive steps in trying to remove some of the congestion in the

Portland Metro/Vancouver rail congestion issue. The last report I

saw indicated that eventually we are going to have to replace or

add capacity to the bridge across the Columbia River. But for about

the next 15 years there are choke points outside of that bridge area

that need to be addressed, and those are the ones that we are

working on right now. I believe the timing on the Vancouver rail

project is 2007, 2009 we should be in construction. That will provide an additional rail line around the congested switching yard.

As far as the Columbia River bringing the products in, those rail

lines are being expanded at this time primarily by the railroads

themselves. The biggest issue is once they get into the hub both

rail lines have to cross the Columbia on the same bridge. The nearest major crossing for rail is 92 miles east of us at The Dalles right

now. I’ll let Bruce address Oregon.

Mr. WARNER. In answer to your question, Senator Murray. First

off, the Oregon Department of Transportation, our legislature does

clearly recognize the importance of rail, freight rail in the I–5 corridor. I think the study that you have before you has identified the
24

choke points. It’s identified in some preliminary ways, some of the

improvements that need to be done in terms of just switching to

make things more efficient. Probably as we speak right now the

legislature is considering our budget where we have about $10 million for passenger rail to continue the additional two trains that

link up with what the State of Washington has done. And again,

as Don mentioned, they are both on the same tracks.

The other thing they are going to be looking at is consideration of $10 million package to do main line improvements to the main

line Union Pacific line that benefit both freight and the passenger

rail. And obviously that’s a general fund issue for the State. You’re

probably aware of the budget problems the State of Oregon has

right at the moment, so I expect this will be a very interesting debate. But, again, if it isn’t addressed this year in terms of the improvements we know that we have to do that in the future and

we’ll be working with our legislature to continue their infusion of

dollars into projects like that in future years.

Senator MURRAY. One of the things I think we’re all aware of in

this region is that the I–5 Columbia River bridge is aging, and it’s

only one of two highway bridges that we have, and you both mentioned one rail bridge that we have crossing the Columbia River

that has to be shared. You know that similarly populated regions

in this country have a lot more highway and rail bridges. Kansas

City, Missouri, for example, has ten highway crossings and three

rail bridges that span the Missouri River. I think it goes without

saying that that really causes a lot of congestion. As we see the

growth coming, whether it’s in rail infrastructure or in commuter

crossings, congestion is going to be a real down side to economic

development here in this region. What options are on the table

right now, a replacement bridge, supplemental bridge, or a light

rail bridge?

Mr. WARNER. Senator Murray, all of those options are on the

table right at the moment. The next phase of the work will be looking at those alternatives to figure out what is the best solution for

the crossing over the Columbia. New bridge or just a freeway only,

is it a joint bridge, is it two new bridges, I mean those are the

questions that we need to look at right now. We also then need to

answer the question on the freight rail bridge. Again, what do we

need to do there? Not only is it a bottleneck for the rail line but

it’s also a bottleneck for the maritime shipping in that area because of—I won’t get into the details—but essentially it creates a

hazard for downward barges during some of the water conditions

on the Columbia River.

So the next phase of the study that we’re going to be asking you

for some funding to do, we will start to zero in and get questions

like that answered so we can give some clarity to folks, figure out

what is the best solution that addresses the needs, but also minimizes the impact on neighborhoods, provides opportunity for the

whole area to grow. And again, addresses all of the modes in a way

that’s comprehensive and doesn’t look at just widening one. Because this region—it took a year and a half, as I said, to really determine there is no silver bullet. It’s just one of the modes being

dealt with. We need to deal with all of them or that entire corridor

is going to fail, if I’m being responsive to the question.
25

Senator MURRAY. And I think we’re all aware that some solution

needs to come forward. You’re talking about the collaborative process that you put together to find the solution and the options that

are on the table. I think Senator Hatfield mentioned what happens

when local folks oppose a project that everybody feels like they’ve

been working on for a long time. And certainly when it comes to

my level and funding, that kind of opposition can have a dramatic

impact.

Can you elaborate on the process that you went through to put

this plan together and how you made the difficult decisions of

prioritizing projects?

Mr. WARNER. Yes, I will try to answer that. If you look at my

testimony you will get a little more flavor on the effort itself, but

I will assure you that it was very inclusive. As I said, there were

28 members that were appointed by the governors of both the State

of Washington and Oregon, who represented business, represented

local jurisdictions, represented neighborhoods, and represented interest groups. And some of these interest groups are folks that

really don’t like widening of highways, as an example, or don’t like

one particular thing or another in that corridor. So we had a broadbased committee. We had a facilitator we actually hired jointly

with the State of Washington. A facilitator that was neutral, that

moved the process along, but it was understood right up front, everybody agreed that we needed to do something in this corridor.

What we came up with was a solution that I would not say everybody could agree with individually, because there were pieces of it

they probably don’t like, but as an overall comprehensive solution

the whole committee, with the exception of one individual, voted to

support the plan that you have in your packet today. They realized

that we need to widen the freeway, which some people don’t like

at all. But we needed to limit the widening. We needed to deal with

the heavy rail. We needed to provide ways to get transit, both light

rail and more buses, which I think you will probably hear about

from Mr. Hansen in a bit, into that corridor. And I will guarantee

you, as I said, for a year and a half, probably once a month for 4

to 5 hours, this committee sat down and went through these issues.

We had extensive outreach in the communities on the Washington side and the Oregon side where we gathered input. We had

an opportunity for people to participate via the Internet, the world

wide web. Very extensive. If you’re interested in some of the volumes of input and what we did with that input, I think you would

be very pleased. Because what I would say to you is not everybody

will be pleased with the solutions that we’ve come up with, but if

you look at it as a comprehensive, unified solution everybody can

get behind, I think you have it right there. We need to again put

the details together, but I feel very, very good about the process

and to make sure that we have that consensus at the local level,

so you won’t hear that we ought not move forward with this.

Senator MURRAY. Mr. Wagner. Same opinion?

Mr. WAGNER. Same opinion. It was a very long process and I

know that as we go into the environmental phase of this project we

will work out a few more details to answer some very specific questions that we were not able to address at the broadest sense.
26

Senator MURRAY. Very good. I want to thank both of you for coming and testifying today, and I look forward to working with you

and appreciate your time and all the effort you’ve put into these

important regional transportation issues that are so vital to make

sure our economy continues—or at least gets better, but continues

to flourish in the future. So thank you very much.

Mr. WARNER. Thank you.

Senator MURRAY. That concludes the second panel for today’s testimony. And I would now like to invite our third panel forward. If

they would like to move ahead into the chairs I will introduce them

as they are coming up.

We have Mr. Royce Pollard, Mayor of Vancouver, Washington,

and Board of the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation

Council; Mr. Craig Pridemore, Commissioner Clark County, Washington, Board of C-Tran Washington and Board of the Southwest

Washington Regional Transportation Council; and Mr. Fred Hansen who is the general manager of the Tri-County Metropolitan

Transportation District from Portland, Oregon. Thank you to all of

you for coming today and for your testimony.

Again, if you have written testimony we’re happy to put it in the

record or additional comments later and we will begin, Mayor, with

you.

Mr. PRIDEMORE. Senator, we’ve had a discussion and hope that

we could——

Senator MURRAY. See, nobody ever listens to me.

Mr. PRIDEMORE [continuing]. Make a small change.

Senator MURRAY. Mr. Pridemore will begin and, Mr. Pollard, you

will follow him. Mr. Pridemore.

STATEMENT OF CRAIG A. PRIDEMORE, CHAIR, CLARK COUNTY BOARD

OF COMMISSIONERS AND PRESIDENT, SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL, WASHINGTON

Mr. PRIDEMORE. Senator Murray, my name is Craig Pridemore.

I am Chair of the Clark County Board of Commissioners; President

of Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council; Chair

of the Bi-State Transportation Committee; Past Chair of C-Tran;

and member of Metro’s Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation.

It is a pleasure to welcome you back once again to Clark County.

We have been very fortunate here to have a senator who attends

to our needs here so frequently and we appreciate it very much.

What we would like to do in our presentation this morning is I’m

going to kind of give the 30,000 foot overview of some of the historical and political realities of this region, and then move on with

Mayor Pollard and Mr. Hansen, who will discuss some specific

kinds of project areas, and then we’d be very happy to take questions at the end.

Finally, I would also like to discuss some of the things we are

doing today within Clark County and in the greater Metropolitan

region to address the situation that we’ve seen. Historically, Clark

County was something of an island in the Pacific Northwest. We

were largely cut off from issues being addressed by our northern

neighbors, and even more isolated by the political boundary and geographic boundary that separated us from our neighbors to the

south. That worked fine for the first 100 years of our existence, but
27

things began to change in the 1950’s. Two major events had a dramatic effect on our community, and both were transportation

projects. First was the opening of the Interstate 5 freeway and expansion of the existing bridge. Second was the opening of the Interstate 205 bridge in 1982. Both events inextricably linked Clark

County’s economy with the economy of the Portland Metropolitan

region. Since then, any action taken on either side of the river has

inevitably had an impact, sometimes good, sometimes not, on the

other side.

An example of a positive development was the explosion of the

hi-tech sector in the region led by Intel, which chose to build a

major corporate center in Beaverton. Though 15 miles and several

political jurisdictions removed from us, Intel’s presence greatly

strengthened the ability of communities around the region to attract other high-tech companies and provided for strong regional

economic growth.

An example of a negative development in the region occurred

when Oregon implemented growth management strategies in the

1970’s without complementary programs being in effect on the

Washington side.

As Oregon began limiting historic quantities of land for residential development, a strong competitive advantage was created on

our side of the river to provide lower cost, entry-level housing. This

helped to propel Clark County’s population far ahead of the economy’s ability to create the jobs and tax base necessary to support

these new residents.

Clark County has consequently become a bedroom community

with 65,000 commuters crowding the freeway system twice a day

to get to and from work. A survey taken in 2001 established that

80 percent of these commuters would prefer a similar job in Clark

County rather than face the daily congestion, but today they have

little choice.

We have begun to change that both within Clark County and

within the greater region. Today, leaders across the region recognize that if we don’t tailor a transportation system to meet the

goals of our communities, our transportation system will create our

communities for us regardless of our goals.

Clark County’s proposed comprehensive land use plan has been

modified to accomplish two primary goals that will have a dramatic

impact on how our transportation system will function in the future.

First, the plan discourages sprawling residential developments

scattered throughout the county. Instead, residential growth will be

limited more closely within urban areas where appropriate transportation systems can be developed to accommodate this growth.

Second, the plan is considerably more supportive of employment

and business growth on our side of the river. It establishes industrial and commercial corridors. They will have priority on our infrastructure investments.

Simply painting colors on a map won’t be enough to create jobs

in and of itself, of course. So, in cooperation with our cities and

with the Columbia River Economic Development Council, Clark

County has initiated an aggressive economic development program
28

encompassing everything from permitting processes, to infrastructure investments, and to environmental stewardship.

We are confident that Clark County will be well positioned to

take full advantage of the opportunities that a national economic

recovery can create and we hope that you in the U.S. Senate will

continue to push for genuine economic stimulus. If we can be successful in economic development on our side of the river, the strain

on our transportation system, our environment, and on our citizens

will be greatly reduced.

While our community is taking those steps independently, we

have also worked with regional leaders across the river to increase

awareness about the regional nature of our economy and of our

quality of life.

In 1999 we formed the Bi-State Transportation Committee and

authorized it to directly discuss and coordinate transportation

issues of regional significance. Because of this coordinated approach, Washington residents have increasingly begun advocating

for transportation projects located in Oregon and vice versa.

While transportation projects are vital to the success of our community, they should only be done in the context of a broader vision

that encompasses our goals as a community. Consequently, the region has proposed expanding the role of the Bi-State Transportation Committee into a Bi-State Coordinating Committee. In this

expanded capacity, the committee will also discuss and comment on

land use and economic development issues on both sides of the

river.

Regionally, we want to avoid problems of the past. When we plan

today, we envision the community that we would like to leave to

our children and grandchildren, and then we design a transportation system that will support that greater vision. Our community

vision creates our transportation system today, not the other way

around.

PREPARED STATEMENT

I want to thank you once again for being here in Clark County

and for all the things you’ve done for the citizens of the State of

Washington, and in particular the citizens of Southwest Washington. With that, I’ll turn it over to my good friend, Mayor Pollard.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CRAIG A. PRIDEMORE

Good morning, Senator Murray. It is a pleasure to welcome you back once again

to southwest Washington. Clark County has been very fortunate to have representatives in the U.S. Senate who spend as much time working on our behalf as you and

Senator Cantwell do and we appreciate it very much.

This morning, I’d like to talk about some of the historic influences on Clark County’s growth and how those growth patterns have impacted the regional transportation system. I would also like to discuss some of the things we are doing today,

both within Clark County and in the greater metropolitan region, to address that

situation.

Historically, Clark County was something of an island in the Pacific Northwest.

We were largely cut off from issues being addressed by our northern neighbors and

even more isolated by the political boundary that separated us from our neighbors

to the south. That worked fine for the first 100 years of our existence, but things

began to change in the 1950’s.
29

Two major events had a dramatic effect on our community. Both were transportation projects. First was the opening of the Interstate 5 freeway and expansion of

the existing bridge. Second was the opening of the Interstate 205 bridge in 1982.

Both events inextricably linked Clark County’s economy with the economy of the

Portland metropolitan region. Since then, any action taken on either side of the

river has inevitably had an impact, sometimes good, sometimes not, on the other

side.

An example of a positive development was the explosion of the high tech sector

in the region led by Intel, which chose to build a major corporate center in Beaverton. Though 15 miles and several political jurisdictions removed from us, Intel’s

presence greatly strengthened the ability of communities around the region to attract other high tech companies and provided for strong regional economic growth.

An example of a negative development in the region occurred when Oregon implemented growth management strategies in the 1970’s without complementary programs in effect on the Washington side.

As Oregon began limiting historic quantities of land for residential development,

a strong competitive advantage was created on our side of the river to provide lower

cost, entry-level housing. This helped to propel Clark County’s population far ahead

of the economy’s ability to create the jobs and tax base necessary to support these

new residents.

Clark County has consequently become a bedroom community with 65,000 commuters crowding the freeway system twice a day to get to and from work. A survey

taken in 2001 established that 80 percent of these commuters would prefer a similar

job in Clark County rather than face the daily congestion, but today they have little

choice.

We have begun to change that both within Clark County and within the greater

region. Today, leaders across the region recognize that if we don’t tailor a transportation system to meet the goals of our communities, our transportation system will

create our communities for us regardless of our goals.

Clark County’s proposed comprehensive land use plan has been modified to accomplish two primary goals that will have a dramatic impact on how our transportation system will function in the future.

First, the plan discourages sprawling developments scattered throughout the

county. Instead, residential growth will be limited more closely within urban areas

where appropriate transportation systems can be developed to accommodate this

growth.

Second, the plan is considerably more supportive of employment and business

growth. It establishes industrial and commercial cores that will have priority on our

infrastructure investments.

Simply painting colors on a map won’t be enough to create jobs in and of itself,

of course. So, in cooperation with our cities and with the Columbia River Economic

Development Council, Clark County has initiated an aggressive economic development program encompassing everything from permitting processes, to infrastructure

investments, to environmental stewardship.

We are confident that Clark County will be well positioned to take full advantage

of the opportunities that a national economic recovery can create and we hope that

you in the U.S. Senate will continue to push for genuine economic stimulus. If we

can be successful in economic development, the strain on our transportation system,

our environment, and on our citizens will be greatly reduced.

While our community has taken those steps independently, we have also worked

with regional leaders across the river to increase awareness about the regional nature of our economy and of our quality of life.

In 1999 we formed the Bi-State Transportation Committee and authorized it to

directly discuss and coordinate transportation initiatives of regional significance. Because of this coordinated approach, Washington residents increasingly are advocating for transportation projects located in Oregon and vice versa.

While transportation projects are vital to the success of our community, they

should only be done in the context of a broader vision that encompasses our goals

as a community. Consequently, the region has proposed expanding the role of the

Bi-State Transportation Committee into a Bi-State Coordinating Committee. In this

expanded capacity, the committee will also discuss and comment on land use and

economic development issues on both sides of the river.

Regionally, we want to avoid the problems of the past. When we plan today, we

envision the community that we would like to leave to our children and grandchildren, and then we design a transportation system that will support that greater

vision. Our community vision creates our transportation system, not the other way

around.
30

Thank you again for coming to Clark County and for all the outstanding service

you’ve given to the citizens of Washington.

Senator MURRAY. Thank you. Mayor Pollard.

STATEMENT OF ROYCE POLLARD, MAYOR OF VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON AND BOARD FOR THE SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL, WASHINGTON

Mayor POLLARD. Senator Murray, Ladies and Gentlemen, I’m

Ray Pollard, the Mayor of America’s Vancouver. And once again I

would like to issue a warm welcome to you, Senator, for coming

back to Vancouver.

I also want to begin with a thanks to you, Senator, for your frequent visits to our community and for all of your hard work in

helping us to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to

deal with one area of public infrastructure where we are the most

challenged—transportation.

Senator, I’m happy to tell you that the general state of bi-State

relations in our metropolitan area, among all the transportation

and land use agencies, is as good as it has ever been. Nothing illustrates this more than the recently concluded 18-month effort of the

Bi-State Portland/Vancouver I–5 Trade and Transportation Corridor Study led by our two governors, community organizations,

government at all levels, business, labor leaders and private citizens by the thousands were a part of this effort.

This corridor is a nationally recognized choke point that nearly

65,000 residents, as the commissioner said, every day tackle the

road to work and back. It is our belief that the two I–5 bridges that

span the Columbia just a few hundred yards from here are twothirds of the remaining lift spans left on this Nation’s interstate

system. The current state of this corridor cost millions in lost productivity and adds costs each month, and is an impediment to what

is otherwise a promising future for our economic growth.

The Port of Vancouver USA has hundreds of acres of developable

land available. The Columbia Gateway project, once completed, will

bring to Vancouver the largest single industrial parcel in the biState metro area. The redevelopment of our downtown and waterfront has begun big-time with over $300 million in private sector

investment capital already at work and another $100 million anticipated in the near term. We’ve diversified our economy, enhanced our labor force, and our utility services and maintained

competitive utility rates. Our medical infrastructure continues to

grow and advance as does our K–12 and higher education systems.

Housing is still affordable and our general quality of life measures

quite high. We’ve got a lot going for us but I am fearful that transportation infrastructure could be our Achilles heel.

For that reason we are, in my judgment, at a very critical juncture. After 18-plus months of hard work we have received a ‘‘Call

to Action’’ from the members of this task force and our two governors. Improving the entire corridor, including added capacity

through the Delta Park area, replacing or modifying the two I–5

bridges, enhanced multimodal and enhanced rail freight capacity

are the essential elements that are needed and we must start down

this road now.

We know what needs to be done. There is a shared vision among

the public and private sector partners for this critical corridor.
31

What are needed now are bold first steps to get us moving forward.

And in recognition of the multibillion dollar scope of the challenge

that lies ahead in ‘‘fixing’’ this nationally significant and strategic

corridor, you and the other members of our Congressional delegation and other elements of the Federal Government will need to be

with us, as a full-fledged partner, from the start and at every step

along the way.

Everyone here knows of my personal interest in expanding transit and in bringing light rail to the people of Vancouver and Clark

County sometime in the future. In order to achieve our comprehensive land use, community and economic development vision, light

rail will need to be expanded into and throughout our community.

I want you to know that extensive public surveying and outreach

has been done on this topic in recent years and I’m convinced that

the people of Vancouver and Clark County want their local officials

to look at ways that could help make this happen, as part of a comprehensive transportation system. I’ve said before that the people

on our side of the river are unique in the world in terms of the per

capita cost of buying into an existing multibillion dollar system.

This also could present us with the opportunity for the folks from

our State who work in Oregon to get a little bit more back from

the taxes they pay to the State of Oregon.

No final decision to bring light rail here has been made. There

would have to be a public vote. We’re hoping that innovative public-private financing partnerships can reduce the cost to our citizens. It is my hope that a private-sector led community visioning

effort currently underway will give greater focus and definition to

the role of light rail as part of a comprehensive transportation system serving the entire county.

Senator, every year since I’ve been mayor you have taken the

time to come here to Vancouver and ask ‘‘How can I help?’’ And you

have helped, over and over again!

There are several short term steps that will help further advance

our efforts here and that require Federal assistance and action,

and they include:

An earmark of about $4.5 million for ODOT and WDOT to help

move the I–5 partnership recommendations forward and to bring

EIS work focusing on the bridges and adjacent influence areas; we

will also need an additional $16 million authorization for EIS design and related work.

A $33 million earmark for the I–5/Delta Park to Lombard widening project, as mentioned, and its inclusion among congressionally designated ‘‘High Priority Projects.’’

Earmarks for Tri-Met and support of the I-MAX project that will

bring light rail to our doorstep—the Portland Expo Center, an authorization and execution of a final design and full funding grant

agreement for the MAX South Corridor expansion project. And finally:

Help us to attain ‘‘new start’’ authorization for the I–5/I–205/

SR500 light rail loop along with a $2 million earmark for the initial

Alternative Analysis pursuant to FTA’s New Starts feasibility process.

Senator, once again, let me thank you for your personal interest

and leadership in the field of transportation and for the focus you
32

have brought to our Southwest Washington and our Bi-State Metropolitan Area.

PREPARED STATEMENT

I don’t want to sound too dramatic but last year one month from

now I had open heart surgery. And I received a warning. I didn’t

have a heart attack. Our transportation system is clogged and

needs an operation. We have been warned. We have not had a

heart attack yet. I think together the character of our region is not

inaction and I believe together we can find solutions to our difficulties. Thank you, Senator.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROYCE POLLARD

Senator Murray, Ladies and Gentlemen, I am Royce Pollard, Mayor of America’s

Vancouver. Let me begin with a warm ‘‘welcome back’’ to Vancouver. I also want

to begin with a thanks to you Senator Murray for your frequent visits to our community, and for all your hard work in helping us to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to deal with the one area of public infrastructure where we are

the most challenged—transportation.

BI-STATE RELATIONS AND THE I–5 CORRIDOR

Senator, I am happy to tell you that the general state of bi-State relations in our

metropolitan area, among all the transportation and land use agencies, is as good

as it has ever been. Nothing illustrates this more that the recently concluded 18-

month effort of the Bi-State Portland-Vancouver I–5/Trade and Transportation Corridor Study led by our two Governors. Community organizations, government at all

levels, business and labor leaders and private citizens by the thousands were part

of this effort.

This corridor is a nationally recognized ‘‘choke point’’ that nearly 65,000 residents

of our County tackle each work day. It is our belief that the two I–5 bridges that

span the Columbia just a few hundred yards from here are two-thirds of the remaining lift spans left on the Nation’s interstate system. The current state of this corridor costs millions in lost productivity and added costs each month, and is an impediment to what is otherwise a promising future for economic growth.

The Port of Vancouver USA has hundreds of acres of developable land available.

The Columbia Gateway project, once completed, will bring to Vancouver the largest

single industrial parcel in the bi-State metro area. The redevelopment of our downtown and waterfront has begun big-time with over $300 million in private sector investment capital already at work and another $100 million anticipated in the near

term. We’ve diversified our economy, enhanced our labor force, enhanced utility

services and maintained competitive utility rates. Our medical infrastructure continues to grow and advance as does our K–12 and higher education systems. Housing is still affordable and our general quality of life measures quite high. We’ve got

a lot going for us but I am fearful that transportation infrastructure could be our

Achilles heal.

For that reason we are, in my judgment, at a very critical juncture. After 18-plus

months of hard work we have received a ‘‘Call to Action’’ from the members of this

task force and our two Governors. Improving the entire corridor, including added

capacity through the Delta Park area, replacing or modifying the two I–5 bridges,

enhanced multi-modal and enhanced rail freight capacity are the essential elements

that are needed and we must start down this road now.

We know what needs to be done. There is a shared vision among the public and

private sector partners for this critical corridor. What are needed now are bold first

steps to get us moving forward. And in recognition of the multi-billion dollar scope

of the challenge that lies ahead in ‘‘fixing’’ this nationally significant and strategic

corridor, you and the other members of our congressional delegation and other elements of the Federal Government will need to be with us, as a full-fledged partner,

from the start and at every step along the way.

TRANSIT AND LIGHT RAIL

Everyone here knows of my personal interest in expanding transit and in bringing

light rail to the people of Vancouver and Clark County sometime in the future. In
33

order to achieve our comprehensive land use, community and economic development

vision light rail will need to be extended into and throughout our community. I want

you to know that extensive public surveying and outreach has been done on this

topic in recent years and I am convinced that the people of Vancouver and Clark

County want their local officials to look at ways that could help make this happen,

as part of a comprehensive transportation system. I’ve said before that the people

on our side of the River are unique in the World in terms of the per capita cost

of buying into an existing multi-billion dollar system. This also could present us

with the opportunity for the folks from our State who work in Oregon to get a little

bit more back from the taxes they pay to the State of Oregon. No final decision to

bring light rail here has been made. There would have to be a public vote. We’re

hoping that innovative public-private financing partnerships can reduce the costs to

our citizens. It is my hope that a private-sector led community visioning effort currently underway will give greater focus and definition to the role of light rail as part

of a comprehensive transportation system serving the entire county.

REQUEST FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

Senator, every year since I’ve been Mayor you have taken the time to come here,

to Vancouver, and ask ‘‘How Can I Help?’’ And you have helped, over and over

again!

Senator, there are several short term steps that will help further advance our efforts here and that require Federal assistance and action, and they include:

—An earmark of about $4.5 million for ODOT and W-DOT to help move the I–

5 Partnership recommendations forward and to begin EIS work focusing on the

bridges and adjacent influence area. We will also need an additional $16 million

‘‘authorization’’ for EIS, design and related work;

—A $33 million earmark for the I–5/Dela Park to Lombard widening project and

its inclusion among congressionally-designated ‘‘High Priority Projects’’;

—Earmarks for Tri-Met in support of the I-MAX project that will bring light rail

to our doorstep—the Portland Expo Center, and authorization and execution of

a final design and full-funding agreement for the MAX South Corridor expansion project; and, finally,

—Help us to attain ‘‘new start’’ authorization for the I–5/I–205/SR 500 light rail

loop along with a $2 million earmark for the initial Alternative Analysis pursuant to FTA’s New Starts feasibility process.

Senator, once again let me thank you for your personal interest and leadership

in the field of transportation and for the focus you’ve put on South West Washington

and our Bi-State Metropolitan Area.

I don’t want to sound too dramatic but I think it fair to say that we are on the

cusp and will either, literally, build the bridges our region needs in the 21st Century

or we will fall into the abyss of failure and inaction that is out of character for the

people and institutions in our region.

Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much, Mayor. I appreciate

your testimony and your heart-felt comments. Thank you, Mr. Hansen.

STATEMENT OF FRED HANSEN, GENERAL MANAGER, TRI-COUNTY

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT (TRI-MET), PORTLAND, OREGON

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Senator. It is a pleasure to be here and

thank you for the opportunity to testify. I have submitted written

testimony. I’ve asked that it be made a part of the record as if delivered. I will summarize those comments. Again, for the record,

I’m Fred Hansen. I’m general manager of Tri-Met, that is the public transportation deliverer in the Portland Metropolitan region of

the three county area.

Just a moment, if I may, you would recognize our national reputation in terms of light rail, but beyond that the overall system

is a poster child for all that is done right in public transportation.

In the Portland region we rank 29th in population and yet our ridership is 13th among all major metropolitan areas. Again, demonstrating how significant that public transportation sector is.
34

Likewise, our weekend ridership exceeds all other major weekend

use on other major metropolitan systems, short that in New York

City. And we have been able to deliver that service in a most cost

efficient fashion compared to, again, other communities. We have

done that by making sure that we deliver good service, service that

attracts people but also in a cost-effective way. In fact, in an effort

to reduce our overall costs, we have taken out over $131⁄2 million

in annualized savings and still delivered exactly the same level of

service, if not better.

We at Tri-Met work very closely with C-Tran to be able to make

sure that our service is coordinated across the river. Everything

from being able to make sure that the system is seamless from the

standpoint of the customer, that is, the ticket that they have to

ride, as well as to be able to make sure that our stops and other

coordinations are there and it’s a pleasure to work together.

Recognizing the need for high-capacity transit, as the mayor has

indicated, as well as County Commissioner Pridemore, across the

Columbia River is not new. As you know and as Senator Hatfield

mentioned earlier, this is a project underway. In fact, voted on by

both our side of the river as well as yours. It was approved in the

original vote in the mid-1990’s on the Oregon side, but not able to

be put together and ultimately not in place for our very real needs.

The 28 member I–5 trade corridor, governor’s trade corridor task

force you’ve heard much about. Let me add one additional observation from my perspective as a member. I was particularly struck

that the level of agreement that occurred both between the two

States and among the various parties, principally government,

business and community was unanimous in terms of the issues

around how many—how much to be able to expand freeways, how

important transit was and virtually high capacity transit provided

by light rail. And it was I think remarkable that the community

of interest was so uniform across both sides of the river and among

those groups.

We are, as you noted in your opening comments, a nationally recognized area for our light rail. We have the first train to a plane

in the West Coast. Now joined by BART in San Francisco. But it’s

interesting to note that the terminus at the airport is less than 2

miles from the Washington side of the river. Likewise, this next

April when we open the Interstate MAX alignment terminating at

the Expo Center will be less or just about one mile from downtown

Vancouver. The opportunities to be able to make those systems be

a part of an overall regional system is there and needs to be able

to be joined in a way that I think will be very soon. I should add

as an aside, we hope that you will be able to join us for the opening

of the Interstate MAX alignment.

The planned construction now of the south corridor project in

Portland, in the Portland region, down to Clackamas Town Center

has another important element and that is a refurbishing and reviewing of light rail on our transit mall. What that will do is allow

for additional capacity, again, a capacity that can be utilized if

Clark County is able to be entered into the system. We really do

believe that the stage is set.

One of the key elements of the balanced partnership is to be able

to make sure that we really do have that loop in Clark County. Al-
35

though it is certainly outside of my direct jurisdiction, Mayor Pollard mentioned again how important it is to be able to see that

overall loop that addresses both traffic in the I–5 area, in the I–

205 area, and, in fact, the east/west into Clark County. Although

we certainly have focused much on the transportation across the

river, intraClark County transportation on public transportation is

equally important.

The first step is, as you’ve heard, to do a further definition of the

alternative work strategies and the early environmental work, and

that will require both bi-State support, but also ultimately Congressional appropriations. We have in this region a perfect record

on being able to deliver projects on time and within budget. In fact,

I think one of the elements of why we are justified in receiving additional dollars is demonstrated by Interstate MAX. Here is a

project, a $350 million project that we are already about 6 months

ahead of schedule and about $30 million below budget. Ultimately,

I think delivering very efficient projects. Not only that, it has provided important economic stimulus, nearly 3,000 direct jobs have

been able to be related to that construction. In addition, approximately $85 million in terms of improved income in direct and indirect benefits. About $250 million of that appropriation will stay

within this region to be able to further that economic impact. And

I am very proud that we also have in terms of public projects in

Oregon, the highest return in terms of assuring that people of color

and businesses owned by people of color have participated at a

higher level than ever before in the history of our State.

Tri-Met and the Portland Metropolitan region support Clark

County and C-Tran’s request for bus funds and funding for the alternative analysis of that light rail loop. We are also grateful for

your committee’s support for the Interstate MAX appropriation and

realize how that will be again a very tight issue certainly in this

budget, but one that’s very, very important.

I might stress as well in terms of your question to Senator Hatfield earlier about doing innovative approaches. We believe that

new public-private partnerships are, in fact, an element of that

new innovative approach. And we are, in fact, seeking language

from the appropriations as—in the appropriation bill this year that

will allow us on the I–205 alignment to be able to have a particularly aggressive and innovative public-private partnership, something that we and the Oregon Department of Transportation are

working very closely on.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Lastly, I might mention that I do believe that it is very important to be able to reward efficiencies in the delivery of projects on

time and on budget for as we have done earlier. You noted earlier

that the cost of crossing the river sometimes are greater and your

cost-benefit analysis may not take that into account. What we do

need, however, is to ensure that the efficiencies that have been able

to be achieved by this region are able to be acknowledged by the

Federal Government and rewarded by ensuring that additional

projects can be funded. I would be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you for your time.

[The statement follows:]
36

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRED HANSEN

Madame Chair and Members of the Committee, I am Fred Hansen, General Manager of the Tri-County Transportation District of Oregon, known as TriMet. It is an

honor to appear here today to discuss the future of the development of the transportation system in the Portland-Vancouver Metropolitan area.

Your committee has been a consistent partner with our region’s governments in

nearly every aspect of improving and expanding the metropolitan area’s transportation system. On behalf of our Board of Directors and the entire community, I

would like to express deep appreciation for your support, encouragement, and for

your appreciation of the challenges faced in this region.

TriMet is fully committed to expansion of transit services between Vancouver and

Portland. It is fully committed to a partnership with C-TRAN to accomplish this,

and I welcome the opportunity today to discuss what that entails.

TRIMET BACKGROUND

TriMet is the public transit agency for the three urban counties on the Oregon

side of the metropolitan area. It is a full service transportation authority operating

over 600 standard size transit coaches, 78 light rail vehicles, and 203 accessible

smaller buses and vans for the elderly and disabled population. We currently operate nearly 39 miles of Light Rail, directly serving Hillsboro in the West, Gresham

in the East, downtown Portland and the Portland International Airport. Attached

is an information fact sheet describing how we are governed and financed.

We are proud of our system because:

—We carry 300,000 people per day—more than any other transit system our size;

—We rank 29th in population, but 13th in ridership; and

—TriMet carries 10 million more riders per year than larger cities such as Minneapolis or Denver.

We have also made great strides in offering this service efficiently. Our Productivity Improvement Program has trimmed $13 million in annual operating costs,

without affecting underlying service to our customers. We also have a perfect record

in delivering capital projects on time and on budget; and for each, private investment in station areas has followed in dramatic ways.

TriMet is also in its last year of construction of the Interstate MAX line which

will extend the system from the Rose Quarter to the Expo Center, close to the shore

of the Columbia River and only a mile short of downtown Vancouver. With our partners, including Washington County, Oregon, we are also developing a 14-mile commuter rail line. With 50 percent local funding and all completed railroad agreements

in-hand, this project is poised with FTA for final design approval.

TriMet is an important element in the region’s ‘‘2040 plan’’. This is a framework

for the orderly growth and development of our urban area for the next 40 years.

In our opinion this plan wisely envisions strong reliance on public transit to deliver

a significant portion of the daily trips required to keep that future metro area functioning in a livable environment.

PORTLAND-VANCOUVER LRT: PROGRESS TO DATE

For more than a decade the Portland-Vancouver transit connection has been a priority for our region. In the mid-1990’s, Portland region voters approved a $475 million bond measure to provide local match for the South/North LRT Project, which

included an LRT connection with Vancouver. However, after a funding vote was defeated in Clark County, this original funding proposal has not been pursued.

Since then we have been incrementally implementing light rail system improvements on the Oregon side that can relatively easily be expanded to provide an Oregon-Washington link.

The most vital development to date regarding the Portland-Vancouver link has

been the construction of the Interstate MAX light rail extension. This 5.8-mile addition to our 39-mile system is on time, under budget and scheduled for opening of

revenue service next spring. Its terminus, at the region’s EXPO center in North

Portland, is only one light rail station away from downtown Vancouver.

In September 2001, TriMet opened service of the MAX line to Portland’s International Airport, the first such service on the West Coast. This terminus is also

close to the intense growth and development in east Clark County, just across the

Glenn Jackson Bridge on the I–205 corridor. This line was constructed through a

public-private partnership that has become a model for the Nation.

Recently, our area governments made a very significant decision for the future of

the Portland-Vancouver LRT link, when it approved the study of developing light

rail along Portland’s downtown Mall. This decision, when implemented, makes it
37

possible to handle the impact of additional trains in the central business core when

additional lines in Clark County are established. Without the move to improve the

Mall, such service from the State of Washington could not be contemplated.

The Mall project is part of a greater project called the South Corridor Project

which eventually will see Light Rail extensions among I–205 South to the

Clackamas Regional Center and South on the near east side to the City of

Milwaukie.

The local match for the first phase of this project has been identified. We will

shortly be asking the Federal Government for permission to enter Preliminary engineering.

With the Mall, Airport, and Interstate MAX extensions, we are poised to extend

service to Clark County efficiently, when the Clark County area so decides.

To operate the extended system, additional general fund revenues will be needed.

During this session of the Oregon Legislature, we are seeking authority for our

Board to adjust the payroll tax rate, which is the main revenue source for the operation of our system. The Board proposes to make such adjustments if authorized to

do so only to support the expansion of the system.

PORTLAND-VANCOUVER LRT: CURRENT ACTIVITIES

Work continues on bridging the Columbia River with LRT in the context of a comprehensive solution to problems in the I–5 Corridor.

I am a member, along with my colleagues Mayor Royce Pollard of Vancouver,

Commissioner Craig Pridemore of Clark County and Mayor Vera Katz of Portland,

as well as representatives from Metro, the State DOTs, local governments, and citizens, of the Portland-Vancouver I–5 Transportation and Trade Partnership Task

force. The Task Force has been charged by the governors of both States to recommend transportation improvements in the I–5 corridor and to devise a strategic

plan for achieving those improvements.

The Task Force members, met for nearly 2 years, completed their recommendations last June, and called for significant improvements in transit as a well as freeway and bridge improvements along I–5 in both Oregon and Washington.

The Task Force recommendations, which are included in the Task Force Report

attached to this testimony, call for a phased light rail loop in Clark County in the

vicinity of I–5, SR500 and 4th Plain Blvd. and the I–205 corridor.

It also recommended that in markets not served well by light rail that peak-hour

premium express bus service be established from the I–205 and I–5 Corridors to

those markets.

The recommendations call for the implementation of transit service improvements

as envisioned in the regional transportation plans of both METRO, the Portland

area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and the Regional Transportation

Council, the MPO for Clark County.

For both C-Tran, our sister transit agency to the North, and TriMet, the Task

Force urged that new operating support be established for the two transit systems

and that the efforts be coordinated with plans to extend both bus and light rail service.

CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT

Congressional support is essential for the realization of these proposals for improved bi-State transit service.

TriMet and the entire METRO region have supported C-Tran’s proposals for fiscal

year 2004 to improve bus system and to seek preliminary engineering funds for the

Clark County LRT loop.

We are also in support of Federal highway funds for the I–5 trade corridor for

preliminary studies in both Oregon and Washington. I respectfully hope that your

committee will give favorable consideration to C-Tran’s request.

Our own Interstate MAX project, which is nearing completion, is also seeking

funds under its Full Funding Grant Agreement for the next Federal year. We hope

your committee can support the proposal for $77.5 million, as recommended in our

full funding grant agreement and the President’s budget.

CLOSING

In closing, I again wish to thank you for this opportunity to discuss our plans with

the Committee, and I would be pleased to respond to any further questions you may

have.

Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much. Thank you to all three

of you for your testimony this morning. I do have a couple of ques-
38

tions I would like to present to all of you. But, Mayor Pollard, I

want to start with you.

I think that you had worked particularly hard to try and bring

Interstate MAX light rail to Clark County. What challenges remain

in getting light rail to Clark County?

Mayor POLLARD. I think the vote in 1995 I believe was done too

hastily for Clark County and Vancouver, but I was involved in that

somewhat. I was not the mayor. And what we—the approach—I

think the greatest challenge is making sure that our community is

involved in the process. And we have been doing that for a number

of years now through various surveys, focus groups, meeting with

citizens. And our intention is, with discussions with the county

commissioners, that any system that we develop will be done in

conjunction with our citizens, and it will be a system designed by

the citizens of Vancouver and Clark County for Vancouver and

Clark County. With all respect to our partners across the river, we

know what’s there, certainly it’s part of what we’re looking at. But

we at first want to design a system that’s good for our community

and then we will look at the opportunity of hooking into the marvelous system across the river.

So, it is a continuation of this entire process, providing facts and

information to people, and that’s what we’re trying to do right now,

in fact, with the continuation of the transportation priorities process, which is a community process, is to provide facts to people.

Those facts that we have now and hope that with the help of the

Federal Government we will be able to continue forward and provide additional facts so that this community can come to a decision

of where we want to go in reference to our future transportation

system and, quite honestly, what role light rail may play in that.

Senator MURRAY. And have you done analysis on the economic

benefits that this kind of project would bring to the region?

Mayor POLLARD. I would admit to you that not in any significant

detail, but there have been. I think we have available to us the information of the impacts that have been across the river, and they

are significant. We hope that the future studies and the analysis

that we are doing now will provide those kinds of facts and information, and I, quite honestly, they have to show us. We have to

see the numbers. You’re absolutely right.

Senator MURRAY. Aside from light rail to Southwest Washington,

it’s also important to improve transit capacity and service there.

My subcommittee has provided resources to build Park and Ride

lots and adding buses to the existing fleets in this region to try and

reduce congestion. Mr. Pridemore, you are on the C-Tran board, I

believe. If you could talk with me a little bit about what projects

have been successful in particular, I would appreciate it.

Mr. PRIDEMORE. I think the most significant one is the Fishers

Landing Park and Ride which opened about a year and a half ago,

2 years ago now, which is already nearing capacity. We’ve had in

the past at Salmon Creek an extremely successful Park and Ride

that’s been over capacity for a number of years, which we will be

looking to relocate now as we try to work out the problems with

I–205 and I–5 connection.

We have 99th Street which you very recently assisted us in getting support for which is a Park and Ride that will be moving for-
39

ward here in the course of next year and hopefully coming on line

and relieving some of that additional pressure. What we’ve found

with our Park and Rides is that if we build it, they will come very

quickly. So we’re looking very forward to developing those further

along both I–5 and I–205.

Senator MURRAY. Are you looking at supporting any peak hour

premium bus service on the I–5 and I–205 corridors as part of the

solution?

Mr. PRIDEMORE. We look at a range of all kinds of incentives that

can encourage that, certainly everything is on the table, and we

have numerous programs now that we use to encourage peak hour

usage, special programs, particularly the clean air action days, for

example. It helped to do that. So we’ve got a fairly broad based program.

Senator MURRAY. Is the region looking at any HOV lanes on either I–5 or I–205?

Mr. PRIDEMORE. We actually have HOV lanes in operation now

in Clark County. It’s the first one outside of the Puget Sound area.

It’s been in place for about a year and a half and still on a pilot

phase. It’s showing better numbers and more productivity as time

goes on. It’s a large shift for this part of the community. We’ve advocated over on the Portland side that as we expand capacity on

their freeway system that that also be dedicated HOV.

We have HOV now that runs from 99th Street in Clark County

down to Mill Plain and then it opens up again because you can’t

run it across the bridge as it exists today. To really make it effective having it run all the way down significantly further into Oregon would make for a lot of time savings both for HOV, drivers

of carpools and things and for our transit system.

Senator MURRAY. Mr. Hansen, do you want to add any comments?

Mr. HANSEN. The one thing that I would add is I that think that

it’s important that each time there’s an addition to the public

transportation system whether it be light rail or bus systems and

so on and whether it be on the C-Tran side or on the Tri-Met side,

what we have seen is that the more ability to be able to get to different parts of the region has a multiplier effect. It’s not just an

additive. It is a multiplier effect on the attractiveness of the system. Every time we add an additional light rail alignment, it attracts more than just the ridership that will be associated with

that alignment. It really provides for that broader set of connections. The Park and Rides, the bus system, all the other elements

come together and are very, very important. We do provide on the

Oregon side important Park and Ride opportunities that are principally utilized by people from Washington, both the Parkrose as

well as the Gateway. And we think that’s an important part of our

commitment to the region as a whole.

Senator MURRAY. We’ve talked a bit about the need to replace or

supplement the I–5 Columbia River bridge, but some of our previous witnesses spoke about the bottlenecks leading into the three

lanes of traffic on that bridge.

Can somebody talk to me about the Delta Park to Lombard

project and how important that project is in the scheme of things?
40

Mr. PRIDEMORE. The recommendation that came out of the I–5

Governors—the partnership agreement was that we would turn I–

5 into a fully functioning three-lane facility in both directions. As

you point out, the vehicles coming on and moving off really does

slow down the effect of one of those lanes currently. The Delta

Park is actually two lanes now, and so you’ve got the two lanes,

plus that impact of traffic entering and exiting, so it really does

create that bottleneck.

Expanding that to three lanes will achieve that facilitation of the

goals of the committee. Also, there will be additional on/off ramps

with their own auxiliary lanes that will help serve the industrial

areas of the Columbia Boulevard and elsewhere. The big vision is

that as we replace the Interstate 5 Bridge, it would be replaced

with essentially a five-lane facility in each direction with two of

those lanes essentially being those add/drop lanes that would

allow—currently, if you go onto SR 14 you’re going southbound on

Interstate 5. You’re merging with traffic just as you’re entering

onto the bridge. It’s a tremendous slowdown. If that lane could instead go across the bridge as a separate lane——

Senator MURRAY. Without——

Mr. PRIDEMORE [continuing]. Drop off at Jantzen Beach, you’d

eliminate that merge and greatly increase the ability of I–5—the

bridge to handle the traffic.

Senator MURRAY. Mayor.

Mayor POLLARD. If I might just add very quickly, purely the emotional issue of the Delta Park project for our citizens is staggering.

But beyond that, if we are really serious about improving the flow

of trade and commerce in our region we absolutely have to have

that opening up. Because it will allow the cars to essentially have

a way to get out of the way so that trade and commerce can move

forward. And part of the long-term vision, of course, is that the

HOV lane would continue. There’s been no decision made, but I

think a lot of people are thinking that the HOV lane would be able

to continue across the bridge and through into Oregon on that side

which would speed up the car traffic. There already is an HOV lane

on the Oregon side coming north in the afternoon, so it’s a system

approach. But the Delta Park fix is, I believe, the first little bypass

for the heart that we have to fix. And not only symbolically, but

symbolically and efficiency wise.

Senator MURRAY. I caught that word first. What’s second, third

and fourth? What other projects are out there that you’re looking

at in the system?

Mayor POLLARD. I think our support for Metro’s light rail efforts

across the river are very significant. As you know, every time you

come back they are high on our priority list and, of course, the initial money for our watchdog here and our requests from the city

for our study of the light rail loop system for the AA analysis is

very important to us.

Mr. HANSEN. Senator Murray, if I might just add two quick

things. One is that you heard earlier from Bruce Warner, our director of Department of Transportation, how high our priority is for

the Delta Park widening. That is something I strongly support. We

all do in Oregon. No. 2, as County Commissioner Pridemore indicated, the issues around how much of local traffic that is close to
41

the Columbia River going just over the river but not too much further versus the through traffic and other things are work that was

done by the I–5 Trade Corridor Study Group and really believe

that that next level of analysis to make sure that we have the most

efficient system, the one that really makes the flows work very

well, is what will come out of the alternative analysis in the environmental work, and that’s why we think it’s so important to be

able to take that next step.

Senator MURRAY. The strategic plan that’s been talked about is

pretty ambitious. I think implementing your recommendation for

improvements to the bridge and providing a light rail loop alone in

2001 dollars is something like $2.2 billion. Both of our States have

just signed multibillion dollar transportation budgets, and I know

there are demands everywhere. It’s going to be very difficult with

the tight Federal funds that are available, State funds, local funds,

that we’ll see any of that fully implemented without looking at

some innovative financing solutions. And I would like each one of

you to talk about what we need to be looking at down the road to

be able to fully implement some of these plans. And whoever wants

to start.

Mr. PRIDEMORE. I will go ahead and start just because I know

the mayor would steal my thunder by saying it. Mayor Pollard and

I have talked over the years. As a matter of fact, he started the

discussion several years before I was in office, and that is the idea

that we do need to look at tolling at Interstate 5 and Interstate 205

bridges to help fund some of these cross bi-State issues is something that, frankly, I’m supportive of. I think the community will

become supportive of over time. It’s a very fair user tax. It involves

a lot of work here locally, at the State level and the Federal level

in order to implement something like that. But in order to get the

kind of level of funding necessary to fund this scope of project, it’s

the type of funding mechanism that we need.

Senator MURRAY. Mayor.

Mayor POLLARD. Obviously, I’m on record as saying that we

ought to consider tolling because I agree with you, our citizens and

the Federal Government, quite honestly, the staggering amount

that we are going to require. I think if we can break it down into

manageable bites and find possible innovative things like tolling

both bridges to use for our transportation infrastructure, that could

be a possibility.

But beyond that I believe there are possibilities that with the

private sector where there may be—and there’s a good example. If

it’s been used across the river Fred can talk about. There are opportunities where there are benefits to the private sector where we

can work together to probably reduce this cost to our citizens. I

think without those kinds, I agree with you, without those, Senator, I think we face a very daunting task, so I think we have to

look for those options.

Senator MURRAY. Mr. Hansen.

Mr. HANSEN. Senator, I would add that happily the issue around

the tolling, that’s obviously always an important element. I remember my parents certainly talking about the tolling that was on the

original I–5 Bridge for construction. Beyond that, however, I do believe that the public-private partnerships are, in fact, important
42

here. I think contracting methods, such as design-build, which can

lower costs and make more efficient are the types of things that

can lend themselves to this type of a project. We’re still too early

to be able to have a specific plan of that sort, but I do believe that

those will, in fact, not provide additional revenue, but by lowering

costs make the band on the revenue a more palatable amount.

Senator MURRAY. And those are some of the things you’ll be looking at as you move along the strategic planning?

Mr. HANSEN. Well, certainly, there are two parts to planning.

The alternative analysis is really looking at what should the structure look like and how should it be used. In terms of the overall

financing that will be a part of the work as well. It will be separate

from the specifics of the alternative analysis, as I understand that

process, but those are pieces that are being put in place I think already or at least being talked of and my guess is it will start to

come together here in the not so distant future.

Senator MURRAY. Well, thank you to all three of you for your testimony today, and for your participation. We need to move on to

our fourth panel, so as you leave I would like them to come up and

I will introduce them as they are coming to the forefront here as

well.

For our final panel this morning for this hearing we have Mr. Joseph Kalinowski, who is director of WaferTech; Mr. Philip Parker,

who is Chairman of the Southwest Washington Labor Roundtable;

Mr. Glenn Vanselow, who is the Executive Director of the Pacific

Northwest Waterways Association; and Mr. Tom Zelenka, the

Chairman of the Oregon Freight Advisory Committee and Chair of

the Transportation Committee; Pacific Northwest International

Trade Association.

Gentlemen, thank you so very much for coming today and participating. Mr. Kalinowski, let’s start with you.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH KALINOWSKI, DIRECTOR OF FACILITIES,

WAFERTECH

Mr. KALINOWSKI. Good morning, Senator. I’m briefly going to

summarize my testimony. You have a copy of it. Again, I’m Joe

Kalinowski. I’m the Director of Facilities at WaferTech.

Senator MURRAY. Could you raise your mic just a little bit.

Thanks. That’s good.

Mr. KALINOWSKI. Is that better? Just a little bit about

WaferTech. WaferTech is a hi-tech semi-conductor facility. We’re

wholly owned by Taiwan Semi-Conductor, or TSMC. And TSMC

produces more semiconductor chips than any other company in the

world. Right now WaferTech occupies about 260 acres in Camas.

The significance of that is we have one semiconductor fab at that

site. That site could house up to five semi-conductor fabs. Presently

we employ about 1,000 employees. And if you built up that site

completely that could go up as high as 5,000 employees. Companies

like WaferTech and TSMC like to cluster facilities. They like to

build multiple facilities.

Senator MURRAY. Yes, move the mic closer and move up just a

little bit so the court reporter can hear you.

Mr. KALINOWSKI. Companies like TSMC like to cluster facilities.

We like to build multifacilities at one site. That provides economies
43

to scale. We get to share equipment. We don’t duplicate support

functions. The problem we’re running into nowadays is the cost of

these fabs. In the past when we built our first facility about 5 or

6 years ago, the cost was $1.6 billion. Now, we’re looking at the

cost of the new fabs to be $3.6 billion. That’s quite an investment.

For companies to make those kind of investments there’s key factors that have to be in the decision-making process. The basic infrastructure in an area are part of those key factors, and that includes things like power, water, sewer, the work force and such.

Transportation falls into that basic need category. For us, the

transportation infrastructure must provide timely access to the airport; that’s where we ship our products. We need timely access to

our site 24 hours a day. That’s where we get our equipment; that’s

where we get our parts; that’s where we get our supplies. And we

need easy access to the industrial parks for all of our employees.

PREPARED STATEMENT

For TSMC and other companies to make these kind of commitments this basic infrastructure must be already in place or we will

not come. A few years ago we were very alarmed with the concurrency issues we had in the area which restricted growth. Working through the hi-tech council we worked with the local communities, the county and the State to fund the 192nd interchange;

that was very successful. More recently we had the same support

to fund the 1st Street widening project that connects the industrial

park to 192nd. And we would like to thank you, Senator Murray,

for your support for attaining Federal funding for that 1st Street

project. Without those two projects I doubt WaferTech would consider expanding in Clark County. They were very important to us.

Bottom line, if you want hi-tech to expand and bring jobs to the

community we must have the basic infrastructure in place. Without

a regional transportation plan the hi-tech expansion may be compromised. And again, thank you on behalf of WaferTech and the hitech community of Clark County.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH KALINOWSKI

Transportation infrastructure is crucial not only for WaferTech’s current needs

but also our needs in the future if we are to expand our site. WaferTech is a contract semiconductor manufacturer located in Camas, Washington across the Columbia River from Portland, Oregon. We currently employ approximately 1,000 employees at our single manufacturing facility or ‘‘Fab’’. WaferTech is wholly owned by

TSMC, Ltd. of Taiwan, considered to be the leading contract manufacturer of semiconductors in the world, with facilities located in Taiwan, Washington and Singapore and plans for a facility in Shanghai, China. TSMC typically does not construct

just a single facility at a location preferring instead to follow the cluster concept of

multiple facilities, which benefit from economies of scale.

TSMC’s original plans for WaferTech called for a total of five manufacturing facilities at the Camas location. New Fabs currently being constructed are all 300 mm

Fabs which means simply that the silicon wafers upon which semiconductors are

fabricated are approximately 12′′ in diameter as opposed to the wafers currently in

use at WaferTech which are 8′′ in diameter. The larger the wafer the more semiconductors can be placed on it. New Fabs are enormously expensive costing in excess of $3 billion each. Before undertaking an investment of such magnitude TSMC

looks very carefully at all aspects of the location. One of the most important is the

local and regional transportation infrastructure.

When TSMC originally made the decision to locate the WaferTech facility in

Camas, there were several transportation infrastructure concerns regarding the
44

rural location of the site. There was no convenient access to Highway 14, an important arterial for access to Portland International Airport. One major concern was

lack of a direct access from the Camas industrial area to major highways such as

Highway 14 and Interstate 205. The second major concern was the concurrency

issues, which have restricted growth in the area. Thanks to a concerted effort

among WaferTech, State, local and Federal representatives, the 192nd Ave interchange with Highway 14 was approved and funded along with the widening of SE

First Street to provide that convenient connection that was needed.

If TSMC’s ultimate goal of building four additional 300 mm Fabs at its Camas

site is realized it could add as many 4,000 additional jobs to the 1,000 already existing. In such event (which would occur over a period of several years), there will be

additional transportation infrastructure issues that will need to be dealt with to

handle the additional employees at the site as well as surrounding neighborhoods

that will be impacted by the influx of people to fill the jobs that will be created.

Convenient modern transportation facilities will be needed for the construction and

equipping of the facilities. Construction of a facility alone will take approximately

2 years during which time huge amounts of materials and equipment will need to

be delivered to the site. Similarly, when full production is reached (estimated at

40,000 wafers per 300 mm facility per month) access to a modern international airport such as Portland International Airport will be even more important to the company as virtually all of our finished products will pass through the airport. Expanded air cargo services such as direct service to Taiwan would be a very important element of any future regional transportation plan.

When the time comes for TSMC to consider construction of their next 300 mm

facility, the Camas site will be considered and the long term transportation infrastructure plans for the region will be closely scrutinized to ensure that they will be

able to meet the needs of an expanded site as part of any decision to expand in

Camas. Without an adequate regional transportation plan Camas may well be at

risk of not being considered for future expansion by TSMC.

Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much. Mr. Parker.

STATEMENT OF PHILLIP PARKER, CHAIRMAN, SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON LABOR ROUNDTABLE

Mr. PARKER. Good morning. I’m Philip Parker, Chairman of the

Labor Roundtable of Southwest Washington, Trustee to Clark,

Skamania and West Klickitat Central Labor Council and a 30-year

member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

I would like to thank our senior Senator Patty Murray for her

leadership in both Washingtons. Her energetic support continues to

benefit Southwest Washington and our Oregon neighbors. I appreciate being asked to participate on this distinguished panel today.

Members of organized labor believe the most pressing regional

issue is funding for multimodal transportation and infrastructure

systems. We are active participants in seeking solutions to our

challenges. We serve as members of interstate commissions like the

Columbia River Channel Coalition; State boards and commissions;

local groups like the Vancouver Transportation Finance Task Force

and have organized discussion groups like the Light Rail/Economic

Development Forum.

Because of our worries about the anti-worker anti-union attitude

in the other Washington are looming larger, I would like to share

some of the issues that concern the men and women of organized

labor. There are many unfounded myths regarding union workers

which continue to surface when government on any level considers

investing in infrastructure and transportation. Government agencies fail to understand how including prevailing wage, union apprenticeship project labor agreements in infrastructure and transportation contracts can actually lower costs while increasing worker safety. It is both possible and profitable to create family wage
45

jobs, with reasonable benefit packages, to strengthen the economy

and the community.

Statements that repealing the current prevailing wage law will

create savings of 20 percent or more are unfounded, counter-productive and just plain wrong. Take the example of new building

construction. The generally accepted cost breakdown is 24 percent

labor and 76 percent fixed cost. Since fixed costs will not change,

the only way to attain 20 percent labor savings is to eliminate almost all of the project’s total craft payroll. And this is possible only

if the tradesmen work for nothing! Obviously, this is highly unlikely.

Right-to-work organizations would have you believe non-union

training programs are equal to union apprenticeship programs.

Again, I disagree. Apprenticeship is the original 4-year degree. A

proven method to enhance skills, efficiency and productivity. Union

apprenticeship programs include ten times more minorities and

women than non-union programs and their graduation rates are at

least 15 percent higher.

In addition, union contractors continue to lead the way regarding

fair, mandatory and inclusive drug testing. As much as 40 percent

of job fatalities and 47 percent of injuries can be linked to alcohol.

In addition, 77 percent of illegal drug users work full time. Nonunion contractors are very slow and non-reactive on this issue.

The opponents of Project Labor Agreements would have you believe that PLAs lead to higher costs and more job-site accidents. A

recent study conducted by the Rhode Island 21st Century Labor

Management Partnership provided actual data to the contrary.

Since I have already discussed the issue of project costs, let’s talk

about safety. The Rhode Island project studied OSHA records for

the period of 1998 to 2001. During that period, there were eight

construction fatalities—all in the non-union sector and OSHA recorded over four times more violations against non-union contractors. The hallmark of organized labor has always been productivity,

safety, knowledge and skill in the workforce.

When governments consider major road construction, they seem

to think that low wages and low benefits mean lower total costs.

This is a false assumption. A study of the Federal Highway Administration data indicates how skills and productivity—not differences

in wage rates—are critical determiner of bottom line costs per mile

of highway. Using data for 13 low-wage States (including MS, GA

and FL) and 13 high-wage States (including WA, OR and CA) this

study showed that the use of higher-paid, higher-skilled workers

reaped an average of $123,000 a mile savings in the high-wage

States. This despite the fact that wages in these States averaged

$17 an hour compared to $9 per hour in lower-wage States.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Our diverse union membership stands ready to support America

in her important mission to build and maintain our infrastructure

and transportation systems. Union members live, raise their families and vote in our community. We support our governments by

paying gas, property, sales and Federal income taxes. We see infrastructure and transportation as both the fertilizer and the seed
46

needed for economic growth. Together, we can grow our communities, the State and the Nation. Thank you.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PHILIP PARKER

Good Morning, I am Philip A. Parker, Chairman of the Labor Roundtable of

Southwest Washington, a Trustee of the Clark, Skamania and West Klickitat Central Labor Council and a 30-year member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

I would like to thank our Senior Senator Patty Murray for her leadership in both

Washingtons. Her energetic support continues to benefit Southwest Washington and

our Oregon neighbors. I appreciate being asked to participate on this distinguished

panel today.

Members of organized labor believe the most pressing regional issue is funding

multi-modal transportation and infrastructure systems. We are active participants

in seeking solutions to our challenges. We serve as members of interstate commissions like the Columbia River Channel Coalition and the Regional Transportation

Commission; State boards and commissions; local groups like Identity Clark County

and the Vancouver Transportation Finance Task Force and have organized discussion groups like the Light Rail/Economic Development Forum.

Because our worries about the anti-worker, anti-union attitudes in the other

Washington are looming larger, I would like to share some of the issues that concern the men and women of organized labor. There are many unfounded myths regarding union workers, which continue to surface when government, on any level,

considers investing in infrastructure and transportation. Government agencies fail

to understand how including prevailing wage, union apprenticeship and project

labor agreements in infrastructure and transportation contracts can actually lower

costs while increasing worker safety. It is both possible and profitable to create family wage jobs, with reasonable benefit packages, to strengthen the economy and the

community.

Statements that repealing the current prevailing wage laws will create savings of

20 percent or more are unfounded, counter productive and just plain wrong. Take

the example of new building construction. The generally accepted cost breakdown

is 24 percent labor and 76 percent fixed costs. Since fixed costs will not change, the

only way to attain 20 percent labor savings is to eliminate almost all of a project’s

total craft payroll. And this is possible only if tradesmen work for nothing! Obviously, this is highly unlikely.

Right to Work organizations would have you believe that non-union training programs are equal to union apprenticeship programs. Again, I disagree. Apprenticeship is the original 4-year degree—a proven method to enhance skills, efficiency and

productivity. Union apprenticeship programs include ten times more minorities and

women than non-union programs and their graduation rates are at least 15 percent

higher.

In addition, union contractors continue to lead the way regarding fair, mandatory

and inclusive drug testing. As much as 40 percent of job fatalities and 47 percent

of injuries can be linked to alcohol. In addition, 77 percent of the illegal drug users

work full time. Non-union contractors are very slow and non-reactive on this issue.

The opponents of Project Labor Agreements would have you believe that PLAs

lead to higher costs and more jobsite accidents. A recent study conducted by the

Rhode Island 21st Century Labor Management Partnership provides actual data to

the contrary. Since I have already discussed the issue of project costs, let’s talk

about safety. The Rhode Island project studied OSHA records for the period of

1998–2001. During that period, there were eight construction fatalities—all in the

non-union sector and OSHA recorded over 4 times more violations against nonunion contractors. The hallmark of organized labor has always been productivity,

safety, knowledge and skill in the workforce.

When governments consider major road construction, they seem to think that low

wages and low benefits mean lower total costs. This is a false assumption. A study

of Federal Highway Administration data illustrates how skills and productivity—not

differences in wage rates—are the critical determiner of bottom line costs per mile

of highway. Using data for 13 low-wage States (including MS, GA and FL) and 13

high-wage States (including WA, OR and CA) this study shows that the use of higher paid, higher skilled workers reaped an average $123,000/mile savings in the high

wage States. This despite the fact that wages in these States averaged $17 an hour

compared to $9 per hour in the lower wage States.
47

Our diverse union membership stands ready to support America in her important

mission to build and maintain our infrastructure and transportation systems. Union

members live, raise their families and vote in our communities. We support our governments by paying gas, property, sales and Federal income taxes. We see infrastructure and transportation as both the fertilizer and the seed needed for economic

growth. Together, we can grow our communities, the State and the Nation.

Thank you.

Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much, Mr. Parker. Mr.

Vanselow.

STATEMENT OF GLENN VANSELOW, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PACIFIC

NORTHWEST WATERWAYS ASSOCIATION

Mr. VANSELOW. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on this

important topic. I am Glenn Vanselow, Executive Director of Pacific

Northwest Waterways Association.

First I want to thank you, Senator Murray, and, like you, I want

to recognize that the entire Northwest delegation is uniformly supportive of the transportation infrastructure maintenance and improvement throughout the Northwest. And like you, and, Senator

Hatfield, in your opening remarks and in his remarks, you very

ably described the importance of the role of transportation and the

role that the Pacific Northwest plays as a gateway in international

trade.

The Northwest economy, while suffering, is as strong as it is because the region’s international trade related infrastructure is

strong. We want to keep it strong. There are some philosophical

differences between the administration and our members in Pacific

Northwest Waterways Association that affect our requests to Congress. The administration is seeking to decrease Federal funding on

infrastructure, shift funding responsibility from the Federal Government to the private sector and local governments and establish

new or increased user fees.

By contrast, PNWA is working hard to keep the Federal role in

operating, maintaining and improving navigation infrastructure;

keeping essential government functions such as operating the

dredges Essayons and Yaquina; increasing Federal funding for

navigation and transportation projects; and opposing the expansion

of user fees.

Federal investment is justified because for every Federal dollar

spent on navigation and transportation infrastructure many more

dollars are returned to the treasury, to local economies and to corporations and individuals. This happens because navigation and

transportation efficiencies reduce shipping costs and increase the

competitiveness of the United States producers in the world marketplace.

Our philosophical differences could have major impacts in the

Northwest. On the navigation side the administration proposes to

reduce or eliminate funding for what they’re calling low-use waterways, ports and harbors. Ultimately, their goal is to de-authorize

low-use waterways either closing them down or shifting responsibility completely to local interests.

The Columbia/Snake inland barge system, for example, is on the

administration’s list of low-use waterways. The ports of Ilwaco and

Chinook, as well as the coastal ports in Oregon, are not funded by

the administration. These differences in philosophy and approach
48

between the PNWA and the administration leads to our appropriations requests.

On the navigation side, we support increased operations and

maintenance funding for cargo facilities like the Ports of Vancouver, Kalama, Longview and Portland, and for commercial and

recreational fishing ports like Ilwaco and Chinook. We support Federal investment in navigation improvements, like the Columbia

River channel deepening and the widening of Blair Waterway in

Tacoma. And we support funding to rehabilitate our region’s failing

infrastructure, from the jetties at the mouth of the Columbia to the

locks on the Snake River and the seawall at Elliott Bay in Seattle.

On the land side, we appreciate the gains that have been made

in freight mobility through your support and we continue to encourage more investment in moving freight along our transportation corridors. We support the initiatives of the I–5 partnership

which you heard about earlier in this hearing, including the I–5

improvements and rail improvements in Vancouver and Portland.

Moving the BNSF rail bridge swing span will increase the safety

of barge traffic and reduce the need for opening the I–5 lift span.

And both inside and outside the Southwest Washington focus of

this hearing are several rail, highway and airmodal projects we are

supporting, some examples include the Fast Corridor in Seattle,

the Lake River overpass at Ridgefield, Washington, and from large

mega-projects down to some smaller local community interests,

eliminating rail-at-grade crossings is a priority for both safety and

efficiency in both contexts.

We support rural market access improvements including widening to four lanes, the U.S. Highway 12 from Wallula to Walla

Walla, the Port of Pasco’s Ainsworth Avenue realignment and the

crane project at the Port of Umatilla, most of which are already underway as a result of funding you helped to secure.

PREPARED STATEMENT

In conclusion, much has been accomplished. There’s still much to

do. And, Senator Murray, we thank you for your efforts and your

success in elevating our regional issues and regional needs into national priorities. We look forward to continuing to work with you

and the committee to improve our regional transportation corridors, and this will result in more efficient trade gateways to

maintain our Nation’s and our region’s competitive position in the

international marketplace. Thank you very much.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GLENN VANSELOW

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important topic. PNWA is a nonpartisan, regional, multi-industry association focusing on Federal trade, transportation, navigation and economic development policy. We represent public and private sector interests in Washington, Oregon and Idaho, including ports, towboat

companies, steamship operators, river and bar pilots, agricultural producers, forest

products manufacturers and others.

First, we would like to thank you, Senator Murray, and the entire subcommittee

for your support of transportation infrastructure maintenance and improvement

throughout the Pacific Northwest.

The Pacific Northwest is an important national gateway for international trade.

Washington is the most trade-dependent State in the Nation. Oregon ranks No. 6.

In the region, as a whole, more jobs are dependent on international trade than in
49

any other region of the United States. (One in four in Washington; one in five in

Oregon.) Waterborne foreign trade through Pacific Northwest ports totals over 60

million tons of cargo and $65 billion in cargo value each year. Seattle and Tacoma

are among the world’s largest container ports. The Columbia River is the largest

wheat export gateway in the United States, handling 40 percent of U.S. wheat exports.

The Northwest economy is as strong as it is because the region’s international

trade-related infrastructure is strong. Although Congress appropriates funds for

navigation and surface transportation in two different bills, we view both as part

of a single unified transportation system. That system includes harbors and navigation channels as well as the rail lines and highways that feed the ports and move

cargo to and from our Nation’s producers and consumers.

The Pacific Northwest Waterways Association urges the administration and Congress to fund needed navigation and transportation infrastructure to ensure that we

have an efficient, safe transportation system that meets the needs of both people

and freight.

On the navigation side, we support increased operations and maintenance funding

for cargo facilities like the Ports of Vancouver, Kalama, Longview and Portland, and

for commercial and recreational fishing ports like Ilwaco and Chinook. We support

Federal investment in navigation improvements, like the Columbia River channel

deepening and the widening of Tacoma’s Blair Waterway. And we support funding

to rehabilitate our region’s failing infrastructure, from the jetties at the Mouth of

the Columbia River to the locks on the Snake River and the seawall at Elliot Bay.

On the land side, we have been urging Congress to increase the priority of freight

mobility for several years. We appreciate the gains that have been made through

your support and continue to encourage more investment in moving freight along

our transportation corridors. That is a key component in maintaining our Nation’s

competitive position in the international marketplace.

The Interstate 5 (I–5) Corridor is the most critical segment of the transportation

system in the Portland/Vancouver area. The I–5 highway, the road and rail bridges

that cross the Columbia River, and the area’s rail network constitute a serious

chokepoint for passenger and freight traffic. Growing congestion significantly slows

not only local traffic but traffic headed to the Puget Sound and California as well.

In that sense, it is a serious local, bi-State, regional, and even national challenge.

According to a recent study, without improvements, the duration of peak-period

congestion at the I–5 Interstate Bridge and the parallel I–205 bridge will double

from 4 hours today to nearly 10 hours in 2020. As a result, congestion will spread

into the mid-day period, which is the peak travel time for trucks. The rail network

within the Portland/Vancouver area is equally congested. Congestion adds about 40

minutes to every rail move, twice the delay in Chicago—the Nation’s largest rail

hub. Delays of this kind have a direct impact on the cost of shipping and, ultimately, our ability to trade.

The I–5 Partnership, a bi-State task force, has studied the I–5 road and rail

chokepoint and recommended several improvements to enhance its capacity and efficiency. Several public and private sources will have to contribute funding for these

improvements. At the Federal level, the Oregon Department of Transportation

(ODOT) and the Port of Portland are seeking funds in the fiscal year 2004 transportation appropriations bill and the TEA–21 reauthorization bill. Specifically, ODOT

is requesting $500,000 in the appropriations bill to initiate detailed studies of the

Columbia River crossing and $32.8 million in the TEA–21 reauthorization bill to

widen the Delta Park/Lombard segment of I–5—a critical project to reduce congestion between Vancouver and Portland. The Port of Portland is seeking $11 million

to build a rail yard on Port property that will add capacity to the area’s rail network.

Another of the I–5 Partnership’s identified projects is construction of a new rail

line that would bypass the Vancouver Rail Yard. This would increase the efficiency

and safety for freight trains moving through the Vancouver area to Columbia River

ports as wall as for freight and Amtrak trains moving to and from Puget Sound on

UP and BNSF lines that run south to Vancouver then east to the interior of the

United States through the Columbia Gorge.

The BNSF Rail Bridge across the Columbia just west of the I–5 Bridge presents

a safety hazard that needs improvement. By moving the swing span from the north

side of the rail bridge toward the center of the river, the opening would be aligned

with the tall span of the I–5 bridge. This would increase the safety of barge traffic

on the river and reduce the need for opening the I–5 lift span, thus reducing delays

for automobiles and trucks on I–5. We have been seeking Truman-Hobbs funding

for this project.
50

Also over the Columbia River, work has begun on improvements to the Lewis and

Clark Bridge between Longview, Washington and Rainier, Oregon. We appreciate

your support for that project. The next phase needs funding of $1.75 million for improved access to the bridge from Longview.

Within the Pacific Northwest, but outside the Southwest Washington focus of this

hearing, are several rail, highway and intermodal projects we are supporting. From

the FAST Corridor in Seattle, to the Lake River Overpass in Ridgefield, Washington, eliminating rail at-grade crossings is a priority for both safety and efficiency.

Rural market access and industrial park access improvements are underway

throughout the Northwest, and more work is needed. As examples, we thank you

for your support of the first phase of the widening to four lanes of U.S. Highway

12 from Wallula to Walla Walla. The U.S. Highway 12 Coalition has requested $5.1

million in fiscal year 2004 to begin work on the next phase. We also support the

Port of Pasco’s fiscal year 2004 appropriations request for $3 million for the

Ainsworth Avenue Realignment and Sacagawea Heritage Trail Project to improve

access to the Big Pasco Industrial Center.

As an example of intermodal projects supported by this subcommittee, again, we

thank you for funding the crane project at the Port of Umatilla, Oregon. Two-pointeight million dollars of the $4.2 million needed was funded last year.

In conclusion, much has been accomplished to improve transportation in the past

few years. There is still much to do. Senator Murray, we appreciate your efforts and

your success in elevating our regional needs to national priorities. We look forward

to continuing to work with you and the subcommittee to improve our region’s transportation corridors. This will result in more efficient trade gateways to maintain the

country’s competitive position in the international marketplace. Thank you.

Senator MURRAY. Thank you, very much, Mr. Vanselow. Mr.

Zelenka.

STATEMENT OF TOM ZELENKA, CHAIRMAN, OREGON FREIGHT ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND CHAIR, TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE,

PACIFIC NORTHWEST INTERNATIONAL TRADE ASSOCIATION

Mr. ZELENKA. Good morning, Senator Murray. Tom Zelenka, Vice

President with Schnitzer Steel Industries and here today as Chairman of the Oregon Freight Advisory Committee which is statutorily created committee by the Oregon legislature to provide advice to the director of the Department of Transportation and the

Oregon Transportation Commission on various freight mobility

issues, programs and policies on all the modes affecting freight.

If I could, I would like to preface my comments and deviate a

minute just to thank you, also related to a different matter that’s

not on the agenda, per se, but your steadfast support of the Maritime Fire and Safety Association has been a key issue and supportive of really the whole lower Columbia River transportation infrastructure. As you know, that’s a bi-State public-private partnership providing ship fire safety and spill response capability, ships

and terminals along the entire 40-foot navigation channel, and

your steadfast support has been critical and appreciated very

much.

If I could, the Oregon Freight Advisory Committee one of its first

projects was a study called Freight Moves the Economy, and that

really I think sums it up in terms of from the business perspective

dealing with the freight component of transportation. Freight does

move the economy. And today’s focus on I–5, as you’ve heard an

awful lot of comments on that, clearly is a transportation route. It’s

also an international trade route from Baja to B.C.

Just this summer I’ve been in meetings from Seattle to Portland

to Sacramento to L.A. and next week in Oakland, coast wide of

States and local interests looking at I–5 as a critical issue and how

are we going to fund and move ahead to make sure that we con-
51

tinue with the advantages that that I–5 system provides, not just

to the local areas but for the entire international trade community.

We’re facing immense challenges. The global supply chain logistics, the just-in-time delivery system, as you know, the heightened

port requirements that we are facing, and again, the renewed interest of the Panama Canal by overseas interests looking at all

water moves that impact the West Coast. I’ve been ticked off a

number of times the challenges we’re looking ahead at relative to

the rapid growth that we’re forecasting both in terms of people and

goods, and yet how businesses are supposed to be competitive in

those global markets.

As we are hearing about congestion today and we’ve all sat in

congested roadways, it’s very irritable and frustrating when we’re

sitting there whether it’s in a car or a bus. But to that 18-wheeler

it’s more than just an irritation. It often means did we make or lose

the sale, did we make or lose a profit. Are we going to lose jobs.

And that’s a critical issue for business.

So funding for the Interstate Bridge and the related projects that

you heard about, and I was glad Mayor Pollard ticked off for you

a set of specific earmarked projects. We heartily endorse every one

of those that he was mentioning to you. Those are critical. I would

only add that, and as you know, that’s almost kind of a down payment, but somewhere down the line we need to be looking at things

like the I–5/I–84 connection down by the Rose Quarter. We’ve got

to deal long term with that or this will just have been a temporary

fix.

Rail—and you’ve been asking the question and I would like to respond to it a little bit. Rail certainly is part of the solution. We

need to do more both with rail and frankly with barge and the connectors, the road connections to our railways and to our port terminals. Will it help? Yes. Is it the total solution? Will we be able to

avoid doing road improvements if we just do the rail? I think the

answer is no.

My company alone, we have a steel mill in McMinnville. We built

a brand new facility there and made the major investment to put

all the product moving in and out by rail. We move maybe half by

rail, and that’s because of the various inefficiencies and other unrelated issues, I don’t need to get into today, relative to the movement of freight by rail.

So it will be part of the solution. We need to do all we can, but

it’s not the panacea alone.

Certainly there’s a lot of talk about public and private partnerships and the capital investments needed. I think that’s true both

operationally in terms of what we need to do at the private sector

and our own warehouse distribution of manufacturing facilities, as

well as the roadways themselves.

And I was glad that you are asking questions about the local

process. Process is something that we also need to look at. It’s

something that frankly our committee has been looking at and, in

fact, recently, we had a series of discussions with some Federal

Highway Administration people from DC visiting, discussing

freight needs. And what was really instructive in part of that discussion was listening to their review nationwide and understanding that from the business perspective businesses increasingly
52

are looking at the national and the international markets,

strategizing how they are going to be making their investment

strategies attendant to those national and international global

markets while in terms of the planning and the funding for transportation projects are increasingly localized. This is the Federal

Highway Administration people seeing this phenomena nationwide,

so that businesses are looking globally, making their investment

strategy so that they can remain competitive. And yet what we’re

seeing is, in terms of transportation planning, transportation funding, increasingly localized and be neighborhood oriented. It’s a natural tension, and it’s not to dismiss the local issue at all, but it’s

one to recognize it’s there and we need to come to grips with how

do we mesh those, because clearly what the Federal Highway Administration folks were recognizing and what we’re seeing is there

is a tremendous potential for a major disconnect as businesses try

to invest and make those national global investment strategies depending on the transportation infrastructure, and it may or may

not be there, and we have got to come to grips with that. It’s something that our freight advisory committee is looking at. And I’m

pleased that that is a topic of discussion today.

PREPARED STATEMENT

So to summarize because I realize time is getting on, from our

vantage point freight moves the economy. I–5 is a critical not just

a transportation but a trade corridor. And I would encourage, in

fact, look at it in terms of the reauthorization measure, if there’s

any way to be giving greater value in the formula for multistate

trade routes that are critical to the national economy that would

benefit the entire I–5. And I know from my conversations with the

West Coast corridor, up and down, that it’s something that we

might even find Californians supporting. Maybe. I–5 needs the investments, and I appreciate your interest.

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TOM ZELENKA

My name is Tom Zelenka, Vice President with Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc., a

leading national scrap metal recycler and steel manufacturer, as well as for the

Schnitzer Group of Companies, involved in real estate development and investment,

ocean shipping and industrial gas production and distribution. With our corporate

offices located in Portland, Oregon, the efficient movement of people and goods and

transportation is key to all these business endeavors.

Let me preface my comments by first thanking you for your steadfast support of

the Maritime Fire and Safety Association (MFSA), a bi-State public/private partnership providing ship-fire safety and spill protection to the ships and terminals along

the 40-foot navigation channel. Even though MFSA isn’t the subject of this hearing,

it is a key support feature of the Lower Columbia River’s transportation infrastructure—and your continued leadership to earmark Federal funds for MFSA is critical

to its success.

I’m also appearing today as Chairman of the Oregon Freight Advisory Committee,

which is statutorily created to advise the Director of the Oregon Department of

Transportation and the Oregon Transportation Commission on issues, policies and

programs affecting multi-modal freight mobility. Our focus is on all modes of transportation, whether road, rail, air, water or pipeline and the committee’s make-up

includes representatives of carriers, shippers, manufacturers, governmental agencies

and port districts.

Let me first make a few remarks from our company’s perspective. Whether it’s

moving our company’s recycled scrap metal for processing or export, from Tacoma,

Portland, Oakland or LA... the I–5 freeway plays a part. The same is true for

the movement of finished new steel products, manufactured at our steel mill in
53

McMinnville, Oregon, serving 13 western U.S. States. As the only continuous freeway the length of the West Coast, I–5 is a critical component to ensuring the efficient movement of both goods and people. I–5 is a significant freight route. It should

also be seen as a key national trade route from B.C. to Baja, as well as the movement of goods to/from overseas.

Yet, the Portland-Vancouver metropolitan area has become a choke point for

freight mobility along the corridor because it simply does not have the capacity to

handle the 100,000 vehicles, 14 percent of which are trucks, that use this portion

of I–5 daily.

Perhaps, the need for efficient transportation can be best illustrated by our 220-

acre industrial park in Vancouver, the Columbia Business Center, on the north side

of the Columbia River, in close proximity to the Interstate I–5 Bridge. Close-in to

the Portland/Vancouver metropolitan area, the 100 plus tenants’ transportation

needs of the Columbia Business Center are served by both north/south and east/

west roadways, rail and barge. The tenants range from the small mom and pop operations to the Fortune 500, with customer markets that are the local Vancouver

market solely, to a customer base that is metropolitan region based, Pacific Northwest based, national or the global international market-place.

Yet, no matter which market is the ultimate goal for these tenants, I–5 plays an

important role either directly or indirectly as it connects to other modes. Our area

is the gateway and hub of transportation; key issues are the connectors between our

major roadways, railways, port terminals and airport and manufacturers, producers

or end users. Every day the challenge is to make the supply chain move seamlessly

and without a delay or break. For every company the specific costs of delay may

be different, but an average cost of a general delay for a truck is at least $60 per

hour and up to about $375 per hour for unexpected delays due to major traffic incidents.

But, the cost of congestion isn’t just hitting the freight move—it ripples through

the economy—with a multiplier like effect—the net effect of congestion can mean

not just a loss of a day’s profit, but the ability to make a sale, stay in business—

or loss of jobs.

While this area has benefited from good transportation investments in the past,

that competitive advantage is fading fast. By the year 2020, freight tonnage in the

western United States is predicted to increase by 100 percent, outpacing all other

regions in the United States; congested lane miles on truck routes will increase by

58 percent, and the duration of congestion at the Interstate bridge will double from

4 hours today to nearly 10, increasing the cost of delay to trucks 140 percent from

$14 to $34 million.

Here, more than other areas across the Nation, we are dependent on transportation-intensive industries, making up 54 percent of the regional economy, as compared to 49 percent nationally. Local, regional and national transportation routes

must be preserved and enhanced if business is to effectively participate in economic

markets, whether local or global. With 1 out of 10 jobs in the metropolitan area related to the wholesale trade and freight sectors of the economy we have a lot at

stake to insure we retain this region’s economic viability to be competitive in the

market-place.

It is critical, however, that we understand and find the funds necessary to invest

in the entire transportation infrastructure in this corridor. This means not exclusively limiting strategic investments to the I–5 freeway itself, but ensuring its ability to connect with other important transportation links, such as I–84. Although

much focus has necessarily been given to addressing the frustrating standstill traffic

jams at the I–5 interstate bridge, we know there is more yet to address. For example, as long as the bottleneck at the I–84 junction continues, improvements made

along the I–5 corridor will be less effective in securing efficient freight movement.

The I–84 exchange should be studied and improved along with other significant bottlenecks along the corridor such as Delta Park and the Interstate Bridge.

Another critical component to I–5 and the ability to move freight efficiently are

the railways. The Portland-Vancouver area benefits from the service of two transcontinental railways, but significant improvements are needed to take advantage of

the rail system’s long haul capacity. We understand that at times the rail delay here

double that of Chicago’s, the Nation’s largest rail hub. Railways are an important

tool in moving freight for businesses along the Lower Columbia, such as our tenants

at Columbia Business Center whom are provided access to rail spurs and switching

services. Can more goods be shipped by rail? Yes. Can we avoid the need for road

investments if more is shipped by rail? No. However, the critical component rail provides to the overall transportation infrastructure underscores the importance of

evaluating the system as a whole, ensuring good connections between all modes, and

investing in the viability of the entire network.
54

Let me now conclude with a few comments on behalf of the Oregon Freight Advisory Committee. One of the first efforts of our committee was the preparation of a

report entitled ‘‘Freight Moves the Oregon Economy’’ (www.odot.state.or.us/

intermodalfreight/Reports/FreightMoves/freightmovescontents.htm). This could

have just as easily been entitled ‘‘Freight Moves the Washington Economy’’! Or ‘‘Pacific Northwest’’ Or ‘‘California’’ Or ‘‘U.S.’’

The west coast faces an enormous challenge in handling the growing volume of

freight related to trade. Global supply chain logistics, just-in-time deliveries and

heightened port security requirements are several of the factors.

Clearly, part of the challenge is the need for greater investments, both on the

public side and by the private sector in optimizing existing capacity and improving

productivity of freight operations.

But, perhaps there are also some ‘‘process’’ improvements needed. One of the key

concerns we have been grappling with is how to address the natural tension that

sometimes exists between freight movement and freight transportation needs and

local concerns about growth, density and livability. Recently our committee met with

several Federal highway administration officials discussing freight needs. It was

most instructive to hear from them their awareness that around the Nation the private sector has become much more focused on the national and global markets and

the need for business investment strategies attentive to those markets, while in

terms of planning and funding for roads, which is dependent on local government

planning and authorization actions, have become increasingly focused on localized

or neighborhood based solutions, often resulting in significant disconnects between

the strategies of the business sector needing to invest for the national or global markets, while the local government is investing in infrastructure based on local impacts alone.

There is no easy solution to balancing this tension between neighborhood desires

or getting goods and services to global markets. Nevertheless, we must come up

with the means to provide the broad perspective needed to ensure appropriate

transportation investment strategies are developed that meet the needs of all citizens.

Thank you for the opportunity to present a few remarks. I’d be pleased to answer

any questions.

Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much to all of you for your testimony. Mr. Zelenka, you have the mic and since we’re moving it

around up here let me just start with a quick question for you. And

I appreciate your comments on rail and on your comments on that

tension that we have between trying to plan globally and recognizing the critical input from local citizens because without the

support from local citizens it’s impossible to get Federal funds. In

a very competitive time when a lot of communities come to us with

requests, it’s pretty easy to use that as a criteria of which projects

don’t get funded, so it’s always important to do both. But I appreciate that.

Let me ask you in particular on the rail part of this because the

efficient movement of freight on our rail system and coordinating

intermodal transportation services has to occur. Can you tell me if

there are any new initiatives in the strategic plan that will help

us improve rail efficiency?

Mr. ZELENKA. Some of the things I think we need to get at are

in each of the States, as you know with the deregulation and the

movement away and the move towards short lines, that we’ve got

to come to grips with how we better mesh their long-term investments so that if you’re off the I–5 valley corridor, how are the local

communities going to be able to feed in. I’ve got a facility in north

Portland where it takes 10 days to get cargo 38 miles.

Senator MURRAY. Ten days?

Mr. ZELENKA. Ten days, if I’m lucky. The same is true coming

out of Eugene because it’s a switch between lines—between carriers. And I don’t want to be disparaging any individual carrier,
55

but again, if I’m company A I’m going to move company’s A cargo

first other than company B’s, which is going to involve a switch.

And that’s also dependent on what’s the availability of the crews

and the switch engines, which may move around, depending on

other more global needs of the rail carriers. So short lines, the rail

yards.

You had some discussion about the needs for some of the rail improvements on the side tracks that I think are critical for both in

Vancouver as well as in Portland. And I would also, as Mr.

Vanselow said, I think really looking at the Columbia River railroad bridge and the need to deal with that both from the improvement on the Interstate Bridge replacement, but also from the navigation standpoint. You know, the old days it was Truman Hobbs

Act in terms of obstruction to navigation but we really need to look

at that as well.

Senator MURRAY. Are there any efforts underway right now to

identify or study how to improve some of the intermodal connections between rail and truck, seaports?

Mr. ZELENKA. At the individual State level I know there are in

Oregon, and I believe in Washington as well. I would defer to probably the transportation department officials for a specific listing.

Senator MURRAY. Thank you. Mr. Vanselow, we’ll move the mic

on down to you. In your prepared remarks you mentioned the need

to improve our navigation channels. In seaborne trade it doesn’t

help to have land infrastructure that is efficient and reliable if our

cargo vessels can’t move in and out of our seaports. The ports all

along the Columbia have done a great job of improving the technology of intermodal connections at their facilities, but channel accessibility is having an impact on business today. Your association

represents ports up and down the Columbia. Can you talk a little

bit about what some of the needs are that are common among

these ports that will improve port access?

Mr. VANSELOW. Well, one thing I think that what we may want

to start with is the fact that we have a system. And the system

starts on the navigation side in Lewiston, Idaho, and so that one

of the common elements is that barges are coming down the system

to feed the ports whether it’s grain at the United facility here in

Vancouver or down in Kalama or in Portland or whether it’s containers.

So that we have a system that is in some degree of disrepair and

we also have a system that’s been difficult to maintain. We have

not had dredging on the Snake River now for 3, actually, 4 years,

and we’re hoping that we will get to a position to be able to do

dredging next year in this current——

Senator MURRAY. I’m surprised it’s taken this long in a hearing

to have that word to come up. Thank you.

Mr. VANSELOW. It is a key factor for us. Then as we look down,

we have failing infrastructure. We have lock gates that are failing.

We have lock walls. I know that your staff was upriver at some of

the dams taking a look at that just yesterday.

So we have to do the maintenance that’s necessary to keep the

feeding system or the feeder to the lower Columbia ports open.

Then in the deep draft side we have a 40-foot channel that is restrictive of cargo primarily for grain and for containers. And we can
56

have dramatic improvements. We appreciate that last year you

were able to get some funding into the appropriations bill, and,

again, so far, it’s looking as though there is some funding that will

be coming forward in fiscal year 2004. But we need significantly

more. We’re looking to the Federal Government for roughly $95

million and we got $2 million last year, and if we’re successful in

conference, presumably we’ll end up with $5 million this year. It’s

a start, but it’s a slow start and we’ll be moving more slowly than

would be economically efficient. So we’re looking forward to finding

a way to increase the appropriations for the channel deepening.

Finally, on the lower Columbia as far as the multiple ports in Oregon and Washington, is the fact that there are problems with deteriorating jetties, both the north and south jetty and there is funding that you helped to secure to do some study of that, but it will

be an expensive proposition to solve the problem.

And then finally, while not the ports that you mentioned, we do

have issues down in Ilwaco and Chinook. There’s a dredge in

Ilwaco today doing work to dredge their channel to keep their

channel open. In fact, to reopen their channel. It has been at less

than authorized depth. Chinook, if we are successful, both the

House and the Senate for fiscal year 2004 put money into the budget for Chinook, but—about $500,000 in both cases. The mobilization of the dredge to get from Vancouver, Washington, down to

Ilwaco was $190,000.

So we’re working with your staff and with others at the Corps

of Engineers trying to find a way to get that dredging done this

year so that if we’re going to spend $500,000 we get $500,000

worth of dredging rather than $300,000 worth of dredging. So there

are a number of issues to both maintain and improve navigation

on this system that are reaching critical stages and significant

amounts of funding, and we need to do some planning as to how

we can accomplish over the next 5 to 10 years some rather dramatic investments on the system.

Senator MURRAY. Thank you. Mr. Zelenka, you mentioned the

word ‘‘security’’ in your testimony. It is one of the realities of life

today that transportation has new costs associated with it concerning the security regime that has been put in place since September 11, a necessary cost, but one that we are trying to work out

and not impact economic development.

Can either of you talk to me a little bit about what the ports are

doing to try to ensure security without passing huge costs onto

their customers?

Mr. ZELENKA. I think the answer is probably we don’t know. Certainly there’s a big difference between aviation versus the maritime

side. In general my sense is the waterborne side. The main terminals feel that all the costs are being pushed on to the—solely on

to the private sector, so that is a challenge. Our company has a series of private terminals. We’re in the midst of doing the details,

security planning, assessment work that Congress has put in place

as requirements.

We already have in a number of the requirements, the fencing,

and the ID’s, and the cameras, but the additional costs I think still

are unknown of just how detailed those are going to have to become.
57

Mr. VANSELOW. The ports up and down the river system and

along the coast and up in Puget Sound are all looking at their

vulnerabilities and identifying and initiating projects to address

those vulnerabilities. One of the issues that Tom raised is on a national basis the Transportation Security Administration has estimated that port security costs will be in the neighborhood of $7 billion. A part of your question was, how are the ports attempting to

increase their security capability without passing those costs on to

customers, and so far they have not found a way to address that.

We have not gotten to the point to where we are spending the bulk

of that anticipated $7 billion. We’re in the early phases. The security assessments, while they are—they do cost money. They are

not—they are not in the multimillion dollar arena. We have appreciated very much that the grant programs, which you have supported, have assisted ports in Puget Sound. Port of Vancouver got

a small grant, Port of Portland a small grant and the Regional

Maritime Security Coalition on the Columbia River got a grant to

try to find ways to—the Regional Maritime Security Coalition is a

program to try to find ways to use the information networks and

the chain of custody of cargo to identify risks while reducing impacts on those 99.9 percent of the cargos that are not at high risk.

But we do have a significant question, the new rules that have

just come out from the Coast Guard are not clear. People don’t

know whether the rules apply to their port or not or to their cargo

facilities or not. They don’t know whether they apply to their passenger facilities or not. So there’s a great deal of uncertainty of

what they must do by Federal law. There’s also a great deal of uncertainty even if they are not covered by the Federal law if there

are issues related to liability. If an event were to occur the law

says you’re not covered, you don’t need to do this work, but then

there is concern on the part of the ports and those elected commissioners that there may be liability in their communities if an event

does occur on their facility if they haven’t done the due diligence.

And so we’re still struggling with how to get some of those initial

questions answered, the initial assessments done and we haven’t

yet turned to the big dollar questions of, okay, now that we’ve done

the assessments, how do we secure the facility.

Senator MURRAY. We have many challenges. We’ll be working

with you on that.

Mr. VANSELOW. I look forward to that. Thank you.

Senator MURRAY. Mr. Parker, let me turn to you. Washington

and Oregon have shared one other statistic, unfortunately, for the

last several years and that’s that we have the highest unemployment in the Nation between the two States and Alaska. Numerous

reasons for that, from bursting the hi-tech bubble, to 9/11, to the

aerospace industry, to markets in Asia. Thousands of workers have

been laid off in both of our States. But one area where opportunity

exists for us is in the transportation construction business. We

know that for every $1 billion spent on transportation over 47,000

new family wage jobs are created. And I think that is an important

statistic we need to keep in mind as we invest in transportation,

particularly in the Northwest right now as we’re struggling.

Mr. Parker, could you outline for the committee what is organized labor’s role in promoting new construction jobs in this region?
58

Mr. PARKER. Yes, ma’am. What we were looking for is to help

shape public opinion to help focus it on the need. We as organized

labor are not necessarily trying to drive and prioritize which form

of transportation is No. 1. There are professionals and very great

people from our group and from the community who can drive that.

We do agree with you that family wage jobs are very driving factors for organized labor. We stand ready to help America rebuild.

But to prioritize which job we would like, we would look forward

to help rebuilding America through our work.

Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much. Mr. Kalinowski, as an

employer, you know that when employees suffer from those long

commute lines and show up late and commercial products are delayed getting to you or being sent from you it really impacts business, and we know business looks long term to make many of these

business decisions and transportation is a critical part of that.

What impacts have you felt from the increased congestion in this

region whether it’s our highways, or rails, or airports that’s impacted your business?

Mr. KALINOWSKI. Let me answer that from the hi-tech industry

perspective. The greater Portland/Vancouver area is a hi-tech cluster. And what I mean by that is there are scores of hi-tech companies throughout the area. They’re all interlinked. They’re interlinked through employees, they’re interlinked through vendors,

they’re interlinked through suppliers. If I have, for instance, a tooldown situation, I need a part and the part is across the river, I

need to get that part immediately. I can’t afford to have that tool

down waiting for parts to come across the river or be caught up in

congestion. It hurts our business significantly.

The biggest cost to our business is the equipment. I mentioned

our facility costs are $3.6 billion. Two-point-six billion dollars of

that is our equipment. We have to keep our equipment running all

the time. So we need the supplies, we need the parts, we need the

people to run that equipment. We can’t afford to have the roadway

slow that down.

So I think the I–5 corridor, the 205 corridor and the roadways

are very important to us at this point in time. We also connect ourselves to the airport. All our product is shipped via air. And it’s

very timely that we have to get to the airport in a very quick manner. So that is the other part that we have to have good access to

the airport and that takes us across the river from our perspective.

So those are the major impacts that we’ve had. So we need to get

our employees to work, we need to get our suppliers and our vendors there and we need to get our——

Senator MURRAY. And grow your industry, that’s our goal.

Mr. KALINOWSKI. Thank you.

Senator MURRAY. Very good. I want to thank all of our witnesses

today. That concludes this panel’s testimony. Before I close, I do

want to thank several people that are here with us today, Theresa

Wheel, who is the district director to Congressman Baird; Bill

Gunley, City Council, City of Battleground who has been with us;

Betty Sue Morris, Clark County Commissioner, who is here as well;

and, of course, Craig Pridemore, who testified from the Clark

County Commission.
59

In particular I want to thank the Clark County Commissioners

for letting us hold our field hearing here in their facility today and

for their hospitality. It’s greatly appreciated. I want to thank all of

our witnesses for their testimony today, particularly, again, recognizing Senator Hatfield who has contributed so much to this region

and the Clark County Commissioners as well.

ADDITIONAL SUBMITTED STATEMENTS

I want to reiterate for all of you, that this record will remain

open for 15 days for anyone who wants to submit any comments

or testimony to the committee on any of the topics that were covered today. And if you are interested in doing that, please check

with my staff afterwards and they will tell you how to make that

happen.

[The statements follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LYNNE GRIFFITH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/CEO, CLARK

COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT AREA AUTHORITY (C-TRAN)

Senator Murray and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Lynne Griffith, Executive Director/CEO of the Clark County Public Transportation Benefit Area Authority, also known as C-TRAN. On behalf of the C-TRAN Board of Directors I would

like to thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony following the August 13,

2003, Senate Field Hearing held in Vancouver, Washington. I was present at the

hearing, as were several C-TRAN Board members, and it is an honor to contribute

to the important discussions that occurred regarding the challenging transportation

issues present in Southwest Washington and in the Portland/Vancouver region.

C-TRAN has provided bus service in Clark County and to and from Portland, Oregon for the past 22 years. Our service district spans nearly all of Clark County and

includes our county’s most urban area and the State’s fourth largest city, the City

of Vancouver, as well as Clark County’s smaller suburban communities including

LaCenter, Ridgefield, Battle Ground, Yacolt, Amboy, Hazel Dell, Brush Prairie,

Camas, and Washougal. Nine elected officials, representing these diverse communities, govern C-TRAN forming one of the few countywide transportation forums in

Clark County.

For the past several years C-TRAN has actively participated in the regional biState transportation discussions. C-TRAN served as a task force member throughout the I–5 Transportation and Trade Partnership Study, sits as a voting member

of the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council (RTC), is a member

of the Bi-State Transportation Committee, partners with TriMet in numerous ways,

and participated in the community’s Transportation Priorities Project (TPP)—Dream

It, Fund It, Build It.

C-TRAN’s Board of Directors unanimously supported the I–5 Partnership’s Strategic Plan recommendations and welcomed the citizen-driven Transportation Priorities Project and the citizen feedback that resulted from that effort. The Board immediately took steps to implement solutions that supported the transit related priorities of both projects and in so doing, directed the C-TRAN staff to involve the public

in the development of a 20-Year Transit Development Plan. This work is underway

and will specifically look at service alternatives that address several funding scenarios for C-TRAN as well as the transit elements identified in the I–5 Partnership’s Strategic Plan.

The plan being developed by C-TRAN is not another independent planning effort.

It is an action plan that synthesizes the planning and public involvement efforts

completed in the past several years by the I–5 Transportation and Trade Partnership Task Force, the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council, the

City of Vancouver, Clark County, the Transportation Priorities Project, and CTRAN. The 20-Year Transit Development Plan reflects the transit elements addressed by each of these agency efforts and will incorporate aspects of the I–5 Partnership’s Strategic Plan, Vancouver’s Transportation System Plan, the county’s update of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Phase I of the Transportation Priorities

Project, and C-TRAN’s exhaustive research and update of its 2002 Financial and

Service Plan.

The transportation challenges confronting Clark County and the Portland/Vancouver region will require continued analysis and plan development, bi-State coordi-
60

nation, public involvement, and a significant financial commitment by this region

to realize the multi-modal transportation improvements needed to keep our economy, services and goods, and citizens moving efficiently and effectively through our

communities. The good news is that there is tremendous public participation, support, and momentum and a strong commitment by government, business, and community interests in Clark County to accomplish the improvements identified.

The testimony provided by the Honorable Mark O. Hatfield is particularly relevant to Clark County’s next steps in realizing the multi-modal transportation improvements suggested in the I–5 Partnership Study. It will be necessary for us to

prove that the transportation improvements desired are productive, efficient, and

cost effective. This emphasizes the importance of our completing the required homework. C-TRAN supports completing an alternative analysis to determine the best

transit solutions for Clark County and asks the Subcommittee to support the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council’s request for $2.0 million to complete this essential study. C-TRAN also supports the regional funding requests

made by other agencies including funding to begin the EIS in the I–5 bridge influence area, to widen I–5 at Delta Park, to complete TriMet’s Interstate MAX line,

and to obtain a full funding grant agreement for TriMet’s south corridor. C-TRAN

also asks the subcommittee to support C-TRAN’s funding requests for $6.4 million

for bus and van replacement over the next several years, $1.6 million for the development of a new transit center in the Vancouver Mall area, and $1.2 million for

continued deployment of Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) technology.

Senator Murray, you and the subcommittee have supported C-TRAN on numerous

occasions and provided substantial Federal funding to improve Clark County’s transit system. I would like to share with you the progress of several of the projects that

you have helped to fund. C-TRAN’s newest transit center and park and ride, Fisher’s Landing, is located in East Clark County, opened in the fall of 2000, and is operating today at near capacity. The 99th Street Park and Ride, a key new facility

being built in the I–5 corridor, is in design and expected to be completed in September 2004. Thirty-four replacement transit buses have been acquired allowing CTRAN to retire its 22-year-old commuter bus fleet. Each of these capital projects

supports our very popular commuter bus service to Portland, which is also operating

at near capacity.

Expansion of the region’s transportation demand management (TDM) strategies,

including additional bus service, vanpools, and carpools, were also recommended in

the I–5 Partnership’s Strategic Plan. C-TRAN is aggressively pursuing TDM solutions that maximize our current infrastructure and resources wherever possible. CTRAN supported the Washington State Department of Transportation’s recommendation to continue the HOV lane project on I–5 from 99th Street to the Main

Street exit and believes the project’s future is linked to the HOV system being continued across the Columbia River and south on I–5. C-TRAN has partnered with

the Washington State Department of Transportation in conducting a regional vanpool study and C-TRAN actively participates in the City of Portland’s Carpool

Matching Program. These transportation demand management efforts are particularly important when factoring the limited Federal, State, and local dollars available

for transit investments and are critical to the region given the lengthy timeframe

associated with planning, funding, designing, and constructing major infrastructure

improvements.

In closing, C-TRAN supports the regional multi-modal transportation system improvements identified in the I–5 Partnership’s Strategic Plan. We are committed to

developing public transportation solutions that provide effective and competitive mobility choices to our citizens and will continue to work with other regional partners

to realize the improvements envisioned in the I–5 Corridor. Again, thank you for

the opportunity to add testimony to the August 13 hearing and for your continued

support of Washington State’s public transportation systems and C-TRAN.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVE CLARK, CHAIRMAN, PORTLAND BUSINESS ALLIANCE

TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE, AND GARY CARDWELL, CHAIRMAN, PACIFIC NORTHWEST INTERNATIONAL TRADE ASSOCIATION

Madam Chair, Members of the Senate Appropriations Transportation Subcommittee, on behalf of the members of the Portland Business Alliance (the Alliance) and the Pacific Northwest International Trade Association (PNITA) we sincerely appreciate the opportunity to provide written comments for your consideration as part of the Senate Appropriations Transportation Subcommittee Hearing.

On July 1, 2003 the Alliance and PNITA formally merged as a combined business

entity to expand our member’s voice on international trade issues locally, regionally,
61

and on the national stage. Our united membership now represents over 1,650 businesses comprised of both the area’s largest private sector employers and hundreds

of small business owners.

Key among our members concerns is the critical role that transportation and more

specifically freight mobility plays in the competitiveness and prosperity of the Portland/Vancouver region as well as the Northwest region. They understand that the

Northwest economic health is directly related to trade within domestic markets and

trade with global markets. Access to these markets is either enhanced or limited

by the adequacy and efficiency of our transportation infrastructure.

The convergence of surface transportation, rail, air service and port facilities in

Portland and Vancouver makes the Interstate 5 (I–5) corridor, between the Interstate 84 interchange in Oregon and the Interstate 205 (I–205) interchange in Washington, an important crossroads for freight flows by all modes into, through and

around this region. In addition, I–5’s intersection with the Columbia River, connecting the Interstate system with deep water shipping, upriver barging and two

water-grade transcontinental rail lines, makes it a natural crossroads for domestic

and international trade.

Our geographic good fortune and wise past transportation investments have created a transportation nexus for this region’s economy. The Portland/Vancouver region is an established distribution area where we reap the benefits of a market area

larger than our jurisdictional boundaries and our overall population base. Our ability to serve that broader market is directly linked to the ability of the transportation

system to support business needs by moving products to market, particularly along

the I–5 corridor. This is why we want to see road and rail improvements that support freight mobility and transit.

We need to continue to take concerted action in these critical areas. Freight volumes in our region are projected to grow. The national commodity flow study shows

volumes on the West Coast doubling in 20 years, and Metro’s commodity flow forecast suggests freight congestion will increase by a measure approaching seven times

the rate of automobile congestion during that same period.

Over 10,000 trucks and 63 trains already move though the corridor every day.

Half of the goods they carry come from or bound to the Portland/Vancouver metropolitan area. The value of these shipments is more than $24 billion a year, which

is equivalent to one-third of this region’s gross regional product.

As a major distribution center for the West Coast, transportation is the means

by which the businesses in this region reach other markets and remain competitive

with the rest of the country. The size of our transportation and distribution industry

is an indicator of the importance businesses place on the transport of products. Six

thousand distribution and logistics companies combine to move goods to market, and

these companies employ more than 100,000 people in the metro area. They represent about 10 percent of the region’s workforce and with a payroll of $4.7 billion,

they contribute about 13 percent of the region’s total payroll.

Within the 17 western States, the Portland/Vancouver Metropolitan area is the

number one origin and the number two destination for tonnage moved by commercial vehicles. The Portland metro area is projected to be in the top five fastest growing origins and destinations for freight tonnage in the United States. I–5 is central

to this region’s ability to distribute products to market. The convergence of transportation and port facilities in the I–5 Trade Corridor makes it a crossroads for both

north-south and east-west trade, and an international gateway to markets in Canada, Mexico and the Pacific Rim countries.

Yet this corridor is the most congested in the region and one of the most congested in the country for road and rail freight movement. With 1,600 hours of delay

daily for trucks in the I–5 corridor, a conservative estimate $60/hour for delay

means about $26 million of productivity is lost annually by shippers and carriers

moving in the corridor. Furthermore, these additional costs are not just borne by

the shippers and carriers, but are passed on in a multiplier effect through the economy at a time when customers are saying, ‘‘No more!’’ In an economy in which the

challenges of competing in a global marketplace require costs to be contained as

much as possible, this leakage of resources is no longer acceptable to our members.

Senator Murray, investments in transportation are not just investments in transportation. They are investments in the economy of the region and the States in

which they are made or, in this case, the States which the I–5 transportation system adjoins and serves. As a result, targeted transportation investments not only

put people to work in Portland or Vancouver, but they keep people effective and at

work in far away communities and States which rely on the transportation investments made in the I–5 trade corridor. And those local jobs created, maintained and

grown in the I–5 trade corridor, and in communities the corridor serves, pay income

taxes that are returned to all levels of government.
62

Access to domestic and global markets is either enhanced or limited by an adequate and efficient transportation infrastructure. Simply put, our members need a

transportation system that can move our people to and from the workplace, and our

goods and services to and from the marketplace. A sound transportation system is

a critical element in our efforts to keep the region competitive for reinvestment and

new investment.

To that end, we would like to call the Committee’s attention to a report that was

prepared by Metro’s Transportation Investment Task Force in December 2002 that

outlines key projects, directions in partnered funding and developing regional, business and municipal commitment. It is a good plan and we strongly urge your support in funding this important strategy forward to implementation.

We are not asking for a Federal silver bullet or a single, Federal solution. As illustrated by the Metro Transportation Investment Task Force recommendations, the

Oregon Freight Advisory Committee, the I–5 trade corridor committee, the efforts

and the investments we support and are seeking Federal participation in are based

upon State (and multi-State), regional and local investments. We are not simply

asking for the Federal Government to do this on its own. The Metro report calls

for about $1.9 billion in balanced, multi-modal investments, a small but critical portion is Federal. The rest would be State, regional and local investments.

We know of your strong support in bringing Federal resources back to the Pacific

Northwest. We urge you to continue your close work with the entire Pacific Northwest Congressional Delegation to accomplish these goals, and we look forward to

joining that effort with you.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT TASK FORCE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SUMMARY

In July 2002, Metro Executive Officer Mike Burton appointed a task force of business and community leaders from Clackamas, Clark, Multnomah and Washington

Counties (the Portland Metropolitan area), asking them to address a critical problem in our region: the need to fund key transportation improvements which meet

the demand of commuters and businesses in order to maintain livability and support economic health. He charged the Task Force with recommending a package of

highest-priority projects, along with revenue measures sufficient to pay for them.

The Task Force reviewed the adopted capital investment plan for the region’s

transportation infrastructure, and the nearly $4 billion shortfall in expected Federal, State and local transportation funding that will flow to these projects. Discussions were held with State agencies and local governments that have responsibility

for portions of the transportation system. The group also investigated a broad spectrum of revenue options. Public opinion polling and other mechanisms were used to

assess the feasibility of these revenue options and the level of support for various

transportation projects being considered.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Task Force recommends that the Metro Council adopt its action plan as follows:

—Approve a package of highest-priority transportation projects that is balanced

among transportation modes in its approach and in meeting critical transportation needs throughout the region. The selected projects should be those that

can be implemented quickly and provide the most immediate value to the region’s citizens. The recommended package includes three components—a highway portion, a community streets and sidewalks portion, and a transit portion.

The total cost will be $521 million.

This package addresses only part of a $4 billion shortfall in capital funds for

the area’s transportation needs. More effort—and other new funding—will be

required to build, operate and maintain the transportation infrastructure needed for a livable metropolitan area. The impact of these projects, and the other

funds leveraged by this regional commitment, will be significant.

In addition to its transportation impacts, this infrastructure investment will

have a beneficial impact on our economy. Over 12,900 person-years of employment in family wage jobs will be created, at a time when they are badly needed.

Highway Projects.—The highway package of projects is intended to help alleviate traffic congestion, move freight, and support the economic growth and

livability of the region. The package includes widening four sections of the re-
63

gional highway system from a current four-lane configuration to six lanes: Highway 26 to 185th Avenue, I–5 in the Delta Park area of North Portland, Highway 217 from Highway 26 to I–5 in Washington County, and I–205 from West

Linn to its interchange with I–5. The Task Force also recommends building two

new planned facilities, the ‘‘Sunrise Corridor’’ in Clackamas County and a connector road between I–5 and Highway 99W near Tualatin.

Community Projects.—A series of neighborhood-scale community livability

and congestion relief transportation projects is included in the package. Here,

the emphasis is on building missing sidewalk connections, addressing congestion ‘‘hot spots’’ and improving neighborhood main streets to create better pedestrian environments and support local business districts.

Transit Projects.—To provide access to key employment and residential centers, supply more transportation alternatives and support the livability of the

metropolitan area, the Task Force recommends a package of transit improvements, which includes building light rail from downtown Portland through

Southeast Portland neighborhoods to Milwaukie, a ‘‘bus rapid transit’’ corridor

along 99W/Barbur Blvd., connecting the planned Washington County Commuter

Rail project to the Washington Square mall and assisting in the funding of the

planned light rail project along I–205 from the Gateway district to the

Clackamas Town Center.

Funding.—The Task Force recommends a regional vehicle registration fee in- crease of $15 per year that would generate approximately $270 million for highway and community transportation projects and a General Obligation bond

measure that would raise $251 million for transit investments. —Create an Accountability Committee.—This committee would be composed of

non-governmental representatives of the community to oversee the implementation of these recommendations and to help assure on time/on budget project delivery. —Ask the Task Force Members to Consider Further Service in the Next Phase of

this Effort.—The Transportation Investment Task Force has brought the perspective and the credibility of non-governmental leadership to this critical community need. This resource should not be lost. —Actively Participate in the Legislative Process During the 2003 Session of the Oregon Legislative Assembly and Congressional Deliberations.—The recommendation of the Task Force can only be fully accomplished if there are additional

State and Federal funds available to leverage the proposed local resources. The

Task Force should take an active role in advocating at the State and Federal

level for additional funding for these projects. —Refine the List of Projects and the Selected Revenue Measures Once New Information is Obtained.—Federal transportation authorization and appropriation

measures will be considered next year, at the same time that the Oregon Legislature will be considering transportation funding issues. The outcome of these

deliberations will affect the Task Force’s recommendations.

COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

THE ISSUE

This metropolitan area has been growing at historic rates, but investment in the

transportation system to accommodate that growth has not occurred. During the

1990’s, the area’s population increased by more than 250,000, and the daily vehicle

miles traveled by that growing population increased by more than 6.8 million to approximately 26 million miles per day.

Meanwhile, there has not been an increase in revenues to adequately finance expansion of the transportation system to meet the needs of a growing population nor

even to maintain the system that exists today. The end result is the following:

—Without new effort and improvements, highway congestion will be widespread

and will increase to more than 38 percent of the region’s freeways by 2020.

—The hours of delay on the road system due to congestion will cost the freight

industry more than $35 million every year and motorists more than $255 million.

—Roadways and bridges are failing. More than $100 million per year is required

to bring the backlog of necessary repair projects to a tolerable level.

—While transit ridership is increasing, it cannot grow at a rate that would

achieve the region’s transportation goals without increases in revenues for more

buses and expansion of the light rail system.

—The total requirement to achieve the region’s goals is $7.6 billion over 20 years,

or more than $380 million per year. Less than half that amount is estimated

to be generated given currently available revenue sources.
64

—Cars stuck in traffic are a threat to our air quality, wasting energy resources,

and eroding our quality of life.

—Neighborhoods without sidewalks lack a basic ingredient of safe and livable

communities.

THE CHARGE

On July 16, 2002, Metro Executive Officer Mike Burton convened the Task Force

with this charge:

‘‘The Metro Executive Officer’s charge to the Transportation Investment Task

Force is to propose a package of transportation projects, programs and matching

funding proposals for critical elements of Metro’s Regional Transportation Plan

(RTP). The projects may include road, transit, bicycle or pedestrian components separated into packages that have different funding sources or mechanisms. This may

result in a recommendation to the Council or other governments to place a measure

on the ballot. It would also include recommendations for a strategy for the next legislative session as well as identifying local public or public/private initiatives to enhance transportation funding.

Using the RTP as its framework, the Task Force will have sole responsibility for

recommending the list of projects and funding mechanisms. The Task Force will also

decide whether to develop a strategy for funding the entire shortfall contained in

the RTP or the most critical elements of the plan. Metro’s staff and an independent

consultant will provide technical and administrative support for the Task Force.’’

TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP

The Task Force was structured to include:

—One chair from the private sector appointed by the Metro Executive Officer;

—Approximately 15 members from the private sector;

—One Metro Councilor;

—One representative from Clark County;

—Two members of the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation

(JPACT);

—One member of the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC); and

—Metro Executive Officer (ex-officio).

TASK FORCE APPROACH

The members of the Task Force have considerable experience as community leaders on transportation issues, and relied on that experience and their research to

shape their approach. Although the Task Force was empowered to make its findings

outside of the official governmental structure, it conferred with the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT), local governments and State agencies

throughout its deliberations, allowing local expertise to inform its choices, but relying on a strategic approach to the four basic questions facing it:

—What are the most needed and publicly supported transportation projects in the

Portland metropolitan area?

—What is the cost of an aggregation of the most critical of these projects?

—How would this package of projects be funded?

—How quickly can proposed projects be implemented?

The Task Force began its work by reviewing the Regional Transportation Plan,

the 2040 Growth Concept and other regional policies. Initial presentations also reviewed the significant financial shortfall in funding for the planned improvements

under the Regional Transportation Plan. National trends in transportation finance,

recent polling data on public attitudes about transportation funding and projects,

and recent efforts to pass transportation funding measures by referendum were also

summarized and discussed.

POLICY BACKGROUND

Oregon now ranks among the lowest States for transportation funding. The region

has historically relied on Federal and State funds to pay for large capital projects

in the Regional Transportation Plan, with some exceptions. The voters of the region

approved General Obligation Bond funding for the local portion of the cost of the

Westside Light Rail project, and Washington County voters have approved a series

of property-tax-funded measures in the county’s Major Streets Transportation Improvement Initiative (MSTIP). By and large, though, a combination of Federal and

State funds, allocated regionally or distributed by formula to local governments, and

city and county general fund capital dollars have built the region’s transportation

infrastructure. This strategy is not keeping up with the region’s needs. Only once
65

in the last decade has the Oregon Legislature approved new transportation funding,

the exception being the Oregon Transportation Investment Act (OTIA), a $500 million statewide program approved in 2001.

In addition, the region is also in a prolonged economic recession. Transportation

investment to support key economic sectors should be one part of the recovery effort.

Finally, in all surveys conducted by Metro and others, traffic congestion continues

to be the No. 1 growth-related issue for citizens in the region.

POLICY OBJECTIVES

The Task Force determined that projects selected for funding consideration should

maximize to the degree possible the following objectives:

—Enhance the regional economy (Projects that move freight, provide access to terminals, or leverage commercial, industrial, or mixed use development);

—Relieve congestion (Projects that address key bottlenecks or relieve existing

traffic congestion);

—Enhance community livability (Projects that assist in creating notable places);

—Provide a funding connection with other public or private investment and enhance the function and operation of the overall system;

—Ensure construction begins within 3 years with full implementation within 6

years from the time of voter approval;

—Provide for a multi-modal system;

—Ensure geographic balance; and

—Leverage other transportation dollars, whether Federal, State, regional, private

or local.

PROJECT IDENTIFICATION

The Task Force next began to sort projects and develop a ‘‘short list’’ of key

projects which fit the criteria and which would be easily understood by the larger

public. Based on its adopted policy objectives for regional livability, economic health,

relieving congestion, etc., the Task Force decided to adopt a working model of three

project categories, and to look for the most critical investments in each category:

Highway projects.—Move freight, relieve congestion, and support economic health

by making improvements and additions to the regional system of major highways,

regardless of whether these were State highways or part of the interstate system.

This category is focused on limited access, regional highways and their interchanges.

Transit projects.—Improve transportation choices, the environment and support

complete communities by making capital investments in the transit system, including light rail, streetcars, buses, park-and-ride facilities or other capital facilities

(shelters, ‘‘Bus Rapid Transit’’ improvements, etc.).

Community projects.—Support neighborhood quality of life and remedy unsafe

conditions by funding improvements to local major streets and to bike, pedestrian

and trail systems. Although local in scale, the effect of these projects is felt regionally in providing transportation choices and in reinforcing local districts or neighborhoods.

State agencies and local governments were interviewed by the Task Force and by

a Projects Subcommittee, which, in the middle portion of the group’s 6-month effort,

focused on a possible project list. An initial project list for each of the three categories was drafted by the subcommittee and reviewed and approved for further research by the full Task Force.

REVENUE MEASURES CONSIDERED

The Revenue subcommittee examined a variety of potential revenue sources for

the three project categories, including:

—Tolls and other direct user charges;

—Tax Increment Financing;

—System Development Charges;

—Transportation Utility Fees;

—Vehicle Registration Fees;

—Fuel taxes;

—Parking taxes (levied on parking spaces for business and commercial uses);

—General Obligation Bonds supported by property taxes;

—Payroll taxes;

—Vehicle excise taxes (levied as a percentage of vehicle sales price); and

—General retail sales taxes.

The subcommittee ultimately recommended that the Task Force test the feasibility of five funding mechanisms, three for highway and community projects and
66

two for transit projects. This segregated approach to revenue measures is necessitated by Oregon’s Constitutional limitation on the expenditure of vehicle-related

revenues.

During its deliberations on possible revenue measures, the Task Force met with

Representative Bruce Starr, who led transportation funding efforts in the 2001 session, and who is developing legislative concepts for the 2003 Legislature Assembly.

Rep. Starr indicated that he plans to seek an increase in the State gas tax and the

vehicle registration fee, with the proceeds to be directed into bridge repair, maintenance and capital improvements.

PUBLIC OPINION POLLING

The Task Force contracted with Davis, Hibbitts & McCaig, Inc. (DHM) to conduct

a survey of preferences and priorities for transportation projects and funding proposals among motivated voters in Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties. This telephone survey was conducted during November 2002.

The sample size for the survey was 500 registered voters voting in at least two

of the past four elections. Respondents were 18 and over and proportionately selected to reflect the population of the metropolitan area. The survey tested individual projects and revenue sources, and a variety of packages which combined

them.

A package approach.—All of the packages of transportation improvements described to poll respondents received very high levels of support, and every specific

project tested in this survey received majority support from these respondents. However, each of the three packages—as well as the full package encompassing all three

of the strategies—generally fared better than individual projects. This indicates that

the traveling public perceives transportation solutions from a regional perspective.

An appeal to balance.—The citizens of the region strongly support the proposed

projects, as well as an approach to transportation investment, which provides a

choice of modes, as shown by the following table:

Transportation packages Support (percent) Oppose (percent)

Transit Projects ....................................................................................................................... 74 25

Highway Projects ..................................................................................................................... 80 20

Community Transportation ...................................................................................................... 76 24

Total Package ............................................................................................................ 78 19

The support for each package was very strong and comparable (74–80 percent),

for the transit, highway and community projects. The general public appears to recognize the value of multiple strategies to address the region’s transportation demands.

Geographic differences are not as pronounced as initially anticipated.—All of the

respondents, regardless of where they lived, had an overarching preference for a balanced approach incorporating each of the three approaches. Multnomah County and

Portland respondents expressed very strong (approximately 80 percent) support for

the transit package, while still supporting the road package by more than 70 percent. Citizens in Washington and Clackamas Counties reflected the opposite dynamic, supporting the road package by 85 percent, while still supporting the transit

package by more than 70 percent.

Though survey respondents were more likely to support projects near where they

lived, the support level was generally not that much greater than the community

at large. This may reflect a growing sense of connectedness citizens feel in the region based on commuting patterns or other factors.

Funding options.—The poll suggests that the vehicle registration fee is a promising revenue source for the road-related needs. Because of the restrictions of the

State Constitution, road-related funds are not available for transit. Among the

sources tested for transit investments, none currently have majority support. The

Task Force believes that the General Obligation bond has the highest likelihood of

voter approval.

Overall guidance and conclusions from the poll.—While the survey suggests that

there is not a clear majority which supports any given revenue measure, the data

suggest that a successful measure can be crafted. The combination measure of a

General Obligation bond for transit projects and a Vehicle Registration Fee increase

for highway and community projects polled higher than any of the other options to

fund the package.
67

DELIBERATION AND DECISION

The Task Force reviewed its proposed projects and revenue measures. They did

this considering their charge, the region’s policies and capital project needs as described in the Regional Transportation Plan, the Task Force’s own objectives and

criteria, and the findings of the public opinion poll. Recommendations were discussed, drafted and approved as follows:

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Transportation Investment Task Force submits the following recommendations to the Metro Council:

Recommendation No. 1: Adopt the Task Force’s proposed package of projects and

revenue sources, and move it to voter approval as a package.—Following the charge

given by the Metro Executive Officer, the Task Force has developed, and recommends that the Metro Council support a package of highest-priority transportation projects consisting of $270 million in highway and community transportation

investments and $251 million in transit improvements. The recommended package

is modally balanced in its approach and supports the livability of the region’s communities in meeting critical transportation needs throughout the region.

The package includes three components—a highway portion, a transit portion,

and a more localized, community-level set of projects. These projects are all found

in the adopted Regional Transportation Plan, but merit particular attention because

they enjoy high levels of public support and will significantly and visibly make

progress in improving the region’s transportation system. The Task Force believes

that the public will be more inclined to support a package that includes a combination of highway, transit and local improvements which distributes its benefits across

many areas of the region.

Recommended Highway Projects

The Task Force recommends a combination of highway investments which are intended to move regional freight, help alleviate traffic congestion, and support the

livability and economic growth of the region. The package includes widening four

sections of the regional highway system from a current four-lane configuration to

six lanes: Highway 26 to 185th Avenue, I–5 in the Delta Park area of North Portland, Highway 217 from Highway 26 to I–5 in Washington County, and I–205 from

West Linn to its interchange with I–5. The Task Force also recommends building

two new planned facilities, the ‘‘Sunrise Corridor’’ in Clackamas County and a connector road between I–5 and Highway 99W near Tualatin. The recommended highway package assumes funding from State, Federal, and regional sources—some of

it new revenue—to match the regional commitment:

[In millions]

Project New Task Force

funding

I–5 North .............................................................................................................................................................. $41

Highway 217 ........................................................................................................................................................ 30

Sunset Highway .................................................................................................................................................... 20

Sunrise Corridor ................................................................................................................................................... 40

I–205 .................................................................................................................................................................... 29

I–5/99W Connector ............................................................................................................................................... 30

TOTAL ...................................................................................................................................................... 190

The new regional funding is expected to leverage $60 million in Federal funding

and more than $400 million in new State funding.

Recommended Community Projects

This component of the package helps ensure that transportation investments are

made not just in large, regional facilities, but also ‘‘close to home,’’ building projects

which improve safety, relieve congestion ‘‘hot spots’’ and support neighborhood commercial districts. Examples are provided below, but the community projects portion

of the package will require additional definition, since the Task Force has recommended a total amount and general categories without selecting each individual

project. This process should be completed prior to sending measures to the voters.
68

[In millions]

Community project categories New Task Force

funding

Neighborhood congestion ‘‘hot spots’’ ................................................................................................................. $30

‘‘Main Street’’ boulevard improvements .............................................................................................................. 35

Sidewalks where lacking ...................................................................................................................................... 15

TOTAL ...................................................................................................................................................... 80

Examples of community projects:

—Construct sidewalks on Capitol Highway in Southwest Portland;

—Improve the intersection of Murray Blvd. and Tualatin Valley Highway;

—Redesign Hwy. 8 in downtown Forest Grove as a community Main Street;

—Construct sidewalks on Railroad Avenue in Milwaukie;

—Redesign Tacoma Street between the Sellwood Bridge and McLoughlin Boulevard as a community main street;

—Improve the intersection of Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway, Scholls Ferry Rd. and

Oleson Road;

—Improve the intersection of Sandy Boulevard, Burnside and 12th Avenue;

—Construct sidewalks on 92nd Avenue between Powell and Foster Roads;

—Reconstruct Grand Avenue and MLK Boulevard in the Central Eastside as a

community main street;

—Construct sidewalks on Murray Boulevard between Scholls Ferry Road and

Tualatin Valley Highway;

—Improve the intersection of Macadam Avenue and the Sellwood Bridge;

—Construct sidewalks on First Avenue from downtown Hillsboro to Glencoe High

School;

—Redesign NE 102nd Avenue in the Gateway district as a community main

street; and

—Construct sidewalks on Fuller Road between Canyon and Harmony Roads.

The Community Projects portion of the package is expected to leverage almost $40 million of Federal funds and $40 million in other local contributions.

The Task Force recommends funding the highway and community projects in this

package by a regional vehicle registration fee of $15 per year.

Recommended Transit Projects

The Task Force recommends a package of transit improvements, which includes

building light rail from downtown Portland through Southeast Portland neighborhoods to Milwaukie, a ‘‘bus rapid transit’’ corridor along 99W/Barbur Blvd., and connecting the planned Washington County Commuter Rail project to the Washington

Square mall and assisting in the funding of light rail along I–205 from the Gateway

district to Clackamas Town Center mall. We have assumed a combination of Federal

and local funding sources to pay for the full capital cost of these projects, with new

funding coming in the form of a General Obligation bond measure supported by a

property tax rate of approximately $0.25 per thousand of assessed value. This commitment of new regional funding to transit projects is expected to leverage approximately $900 million in other Federal and local funds. The light rail projects assume

Federal project support at a 60 percent level. The Task Force also recognizes the

need to increase the amount of revenue available for operation of the transit system

due to the growing population and capital projects expansion.

[In millions]

Project New Task Force

funding

Downtown Portland/SE Portland/Milwaukie Light Rail ........................................................................................ $185

Bus Rapid Transit on Baurbur/99W .................................................................................................................... 20

Washington County Commuter Rail—Washington Sq. Connect. ........................................................................ 10

Assist in Funding I–205 Light Rail ..................................................................................................................... 36

TOTAL ...................................................................................................................................................... 251

Recommendation No. 2: Create an accountability committee of Task Force members

and other interested citizens to maintain the basis of the Task Force’s recommendations in the community, and to thus improve public acceptance.—Numerous surveys

have shown, and recent experience has confirmed, that one problem facing transportation funding measures is a ‘‘credibility problem’’ of public agencies. Warranted or
69

not, many citizens perceive that transportation agencies do not use current funds

efficiently and therefore are wary of approving any additional funding. Providing

oversight by a body of citizens could help ameliorate this concern and improve the

package’s chances of success. This nongovernmental oversight group should also assist in explaining the projects’ benefits to the public and in assuring that the

projects are delivered on time and on budget.

Recommendation No. 3: Ask the Task Force members to consider further service

in the next phase of this effort.—Although the Transportation Investment Task

Force’s members were asked to make a 6-month commitment, the level of involvement and interest in this project by Task Force members is notable. This is a citizen

resource that the Metro Council should continue to utilize. Many Task Force members would be willing to further assist the Metro Council and help implement these

recommendations.

The unique value of the Task Force as a primarily volunteer and private sectorbased group working outside of the customary governmental process should be retained as well. This effort has been a successful example of a new approach.

Recommendation No. 4: Actively participate in the legislative process during the

2003 session of the Oregon legislative assembly and in congressional deliberations.—

The recommendations of the Task Force can only be fully accomplished if there are

additional State and Federal funds available to leverage the proposed local resources. The Task Force should take an active role in advocating at the State and

Federal level for additional funding for these projects.

The Task Force recommends that a dialogue be continued with State legislative

leaders and other interests who are planning a transportation funding effort in the

next session. The Task Force believes that a coordinated effort is possible and mutually advantageous, and that the funding measures proposed for the metropolitan

area are compatible with the measures currently being discussed for statewide application.

The Task Force also recognizes the need for the 2003 Oregon Legislature to authorize an increase in the Tri-Met payroll tax, which will be needed to meet growing

capital and operating needs in the transit system.

Recommendation No. 5: Refine the list of projects and the selected revenue measures once new information is obtained.—Federal transportation authorization and

appropriation measures will be considered next year, at the same time that the Oregon Legislature will be considering transportation funding issues. The outcome of

these deliberations will affect the Task Force’s recommendations. In addition to

questions about State and Federal funding which should become clearer over the

next 6 months, the Task Force believes that further research will be needed to refine the package, to better understand public attitudes about transportation generally, the proposed projects in particular, and the types and amounts of revenue

measures being proposed.

LETTER FROM JIM HOWELL

Portland, Oregon, August 26, 2003.

Senator PATTY MURRAY,

Senate Transportation Appropriation Subcommittee.

DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: This letter is intended to be part of the record of the

Sub-Committee’s Hearing held on August 13, 2003 addressing the transportation

problems affecting the Southwest Washington/Metropolitan Portland region.

BACKGROUND

In January 2001, the States of Oregon and Washington started a project called

the Portland/Vancouver I–5 Transportation and Trade Partnership to address the

growing concerns about congestion in the I–5 corridor between I–84 in downtown

Portland and I–205 north of Vancouver.

The Project Task Force’s final recommendation is to widen I–5 to a maximum of

three through lanes in each direction and build a new supplemental or replacement

bridge across the Columbia River with up to two additional lanes in each direction

and two light rail tracks. They also recommend adding rail capacity by pursuing rail

infrastructure improvements required to accommodate anticipated 20 year freight

rail growth in the I–5 Corridor while allowing for eight additional intercity passenger trains.
70

COMMUTER RAIL

Commuter rail was not a recommended option, not because it was looked upon

unfavorably, but because the I–5 Rail Capacity Study which was done as part of

this project, determined that there was insufficient capacity through Vancouver

Yards, North Portland and over the existing railroad bridge for commuter rail service.

We strongly believe that commuter rail is needed, in addition to light rail and

more local road capacity if we are going to permanently solve the transportation

problems in this corridor. We wish to point out that commuter rail does not ‘‘compete’’ with light rail. The two can work hand-in-hand to serve Clark County and

Vancouver. They work together by connecting to one another—serving different sets

of commuters based on origin and destination of those commuters. Because of this,

many more persons can find a rail line close to their home, within walking distance

or a short car drive. Commuter traffic on I–5 goes down as a result, freeing up capacity for freight on I–5. Stations can provide for transfers between light rail and

commuter rail, creating a network serving central Vancouver and connecting to the

extensive light rail system throughout the Portland Metro area that now includes

not only downtown Portland, but the Portland International Airport. The net effect

will be a dramatic reduction in commuter traffic by automobile in the I–5 corridor.

The I–5 Transportation and Trade Partnership Task Force is correct to put the

light rail connection to the Portland system as a high priority. However, the substantial potential for commuter rail should not be ignored. This is the primary reason we are proposing a Vancouver-North Portland Passenger Rail Bypass that

would, in addition to providing capacity for commuter rail, accommodate more high

speed Cascade Corridor and long distance trains than is possible with the Task

Force’s recommendations. It also would greatly increase freight rail capacity by removing all passenger trains from BNSF’s most congested tracks in Vancouver and

North Portland.

We offer the attached map (Figure 1) as an example of a passenger rail bypass

in the existing rail corridor. Another example could put it further east next to I–

5.

Two commuter routes, one north to Ridgefield or Kelso, and another east to

Washougal (Figure 2) would greatly reduce long distance highway commutes, thus

reducing congestion on I–5 and SR500. These commuter trains would more than

double the total number of passenger trains currently projected for this corridor over

the next 20 years.

These commuter lines could come into Union Station, but a decided preference

would be a new rail station on the East Side of the River next to the Rose Quarter.

Here, commuter trains can connect with all light rail lines including direct rail service to the Portland Airport. The beginnings of a true regional rail system could finally include Clark County and Vancouver, and this time by two different rail

modes that would connect to each other in downtown Vancouver.

Another advantage of a new passenger rail bridge over the Columbia is that it

could accommodate, at minimal cost, a roadway on an upper deck connecting the

West Vancouver truck traffic from Mill Plain Blvd. with N. Marine Drive near the

Rivergate industrial area. This too will help trucks stay out of the heavy commuter

traffic across the I–5 Bridge, and will give them much faster passage from

Vancouver’s industrial area to that of Portland.

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS

I–5 and I–205 are the only options available for local travel between Oregon and

Washington. The fact that there are 12 freeway lanes, with no alternative options,

is one of the fundamental reasons for the horrendous traffic problems on I–5.

Why is there no longer any arterial street access? U.S. Highway 99, the primary

highway between Portland and Seattle, used to follow Interstate and Denver Avenues to Jantzen Beach and Vancouver. This arterial connection was severed in the

1960’s when the Minnesota Freeway (now I–5) was built. Access to Hayden Island

became a freeway interchange and Denver Avenue dissolved into the freeway. It remains this way today.

Many of the traffic snarls in this area, caused by local traffic entering the freeway, could be resolved without widening I–5. The most obvious solution is to disconnect Denver Avenue from the freeway and re-establish its connection to Hayden

Island and Vancouver via local arterial lanes on the new bridges needed for light

rail. The freeway could be streamlined to provide three through lanes on the existing southbound bridge span by providing an auxiliary lane to I–5 on the light rail

bridge from downtown Vancouver and SR14. Local access lanes between downtown

Vancouver and Hayden Island would negate the need for a northbound freeway ac-
71

cess from Hayden Island which currently reduces the effective capacity of I–5 to two

lanes on the northbound bridge (see Figure 3).

Providing an integrated light rail, freight rail, commuter rail and highway solution to the transportation problems rather than a fragmented effort that deals with

the various modes separately will more efficiently solve the transportation problems

affecting the Southwest Washington/Metropolitan Portland region.

Cordially,

JIM HOWELL.
72
73

CONCLUSION OF HEARING

Senator MURRAY. With that, this does conclude the field hearing.

The subcommittee is recessed according to the call of the Chair.

Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 12:26 p.m., Wednesday, August 13, the hearing

was concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene

subject to the call of the Chair.]

Æ