DOCSLIB.ORG

CRC Report 1.10

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CRC Report 1.10 CRITICAL CONCERNS ! TAXPAYER RISK TRAVEL DEMAND SAFETY ALTERNATIVES ECONOMIC IMPACT & FREIGHT MOVEMENT & SEISMIC READINESS OPTIONS TO MEET OUR TAXPAYER BURDEN CONGESTION & COLLISIONS REGION’S NEEDS CRC FACTS I. Executive Overview In 2005 Oregon and Washington began a process to identify the key needs for re-designing five ! miles of freeway and interchanges including the Interstate 5 Bridge, which was built in two phases in 1917 and 1958. In 2013 the Oregon legislature voted to support a bi-state proposal in Why should Oregon which the costs, risk, and management experience were shared with Washington state. Later in go it alone on the 2013, the Washington legislature failed to support the project. most expensive Losing this partner raises many questions for the future of the project. public project in The 2014 legislative assembly will be asked to support a new $2.8 billion plan in which Oregon recent history? alone would shoulder full financial, legal, planning, management, and execution responsibilities for the project. Many Oregon leaders saw the original proposal to build a multi-state project as a CRC FACTS: Presented by 1000 Friends of Oregon Document Structure significant risk. For these leaders and scores of new concerned leaders, this proposal to “go it alone” represents the same initial risks, with increased This report includes an overview of the critical interests behind the last several years of financial risk and no new or additional benefits for the state of Oregon. planning and project development for the CRC. Going forward, Oregon taxpayers would take on at least $1.6 billion in additional loan and bond obligations for the new “Oregon Only” plan. This I. Executive Summary: number would increase if costs run over, if toll revenues fall short, or if • Taxpayer Risk Federal grants and loans are not fully funded. • Travel Demand After concluding this review of the available data, we urge • Safety: Collisions & Seismic Readiness legislators to vote against the current “Oregon Only” option. It does not meet many of the most important interests of Oregon voters, and it • Alternative Plans exposes Oregon taxpayers to avoidable financial risk. Alternative proposals II. Taxpayer Risk and concepts offer meaningful advantages over the current CRC proposal, III. Business Impact yet they have not been fully explored by the legislature. IV. Workforce Impact Voting against the “Oregon Only” option does not close the door on a new V. Land Use and Local Impact bridge, or on addressing concerns of safety, freight and commuter mobility, VI. Environmental Impact transit options, mixed-use development, and prudent fiscal planning. VII. Statewide Transit Impact VIII. Interests & Options Critical Interests ! 1. HIGH TAXPAYER RISK SOURCES AND DATA We believe that starting with clear data and The new “Oregon Only” proposal introduces new costs and new risks to shared interests is the key to a successful Oregon tax payers. It is not clear from the CRC’s financial plan that the toll regional transportation and public transit plan. revenue for the project will be sufficient and timely to pay both the amortization of the bond debt for the bridge and also the high costs of One of the most significant obstacles to providing a non-biased review of any part for operating the bridge tolling system. this project is that much of the proposal is not based on measured facts, but on projections: The CRC’s financial plan relies on assumptions about three things: (1) ability Guesses, models, and assumptions about to contain costs during construction, (2) federal support, and (3) revenue future human behavior. from tolling. The most recent financial statements from ODOT show a plan to spend $2.79 billion on the project, and a plan to raise $2.71 billion, In general, information for this report was showing an $86 million dollar shortfall. The back-up plan, if costs are higher drawn from the CRC’s commissioned research and data, from ODOT, or from than anticipated, or if Federal grants, loans, or tolling (or all three) are lower regional news outlets. than anticipated, is to increase tolls, reduce or eliminate other transportation projects in the state, and to raise taxes. 2. TRAVEL DEMAND LOWER THAN PROJECTED ! Estimates of travel demand for both commercial and non-commercial vehicles have changed since the original case was made for this project. ! Original estimates of travel demand were based on a ten-year period, from ! 1995-2005, of increasing daily traffic averages on the bridge. Original projections showed average daily traffic increasing to 184,000 vehicles in ! 2036. That projected level of growth raised concerns about increased ! congestion, wait times and collisions on and around the I-5 bridge. However, as has been recently revealed in the state-commissioned Investment Grade Analysis, those traffic projections were incorrect. Travel Voting against “Oregon Only” demand has declined in Oregon and around the nation since 2005, even does not close the door on a excluding the effects of the recession. This multi-year national trend is new bridge, or other alternatives. unlikely to reverse. The original incorrect projections were the basis for the design, financial plan, and environmental impact assessment for the CRC. These new data invalidate the core transportation argument for the project. !2 CRC FACTS: Presented by 1000 Friends of Oregon New Data Reveals Lower Demand ! [Source: CRC Tolling Studies & RTC Traffic Studies] ! 190000 ! 162500 Travel demand has declined in Oregon and around the nation 135000 since 2005. 107500 Period of Original Traffic Study 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Original Projections New Data & Projections Original Travel Estimates Current Estimates Based on a 2005 current traffic Since 2005, traffic decreased instead of analysis, traffic was estimated to increasing. Planners are no longer sure that increase steadily to more than the original estimates are a good basis for 178,000 in 2030. predicting travel demand through the corridor. The CRC originally projected Based on investment grade analysis from marginal reduction in traffic due to CRC’s consulting firm, CDM Smith, tolling will tolling on the I-5 bridge. reduce travel on the I-5 bridge by as much as 76,000 vehicles per day in 2022. Original estimates projected no Based on CDM Smith’s report, travel reduced significant travel diversion to the on the I-5 bridge will increase travel on I-205 I-205 corridor. by as much at 39,500 vehicles per day. 3. SAFETY COLLISIONS TIED TO CONGESTION The CRC project has identified two levels of concern for traffic: (1) Current issues with collisions due to congestion and outdated highway design, and accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists, and (2) The potential increased rate of collisions due to projections of increased traffic congestion. SEISMIC READINESS AND STRUCTURAL SOUNDNESS The CRC questions the I-5 bridge’s ability to withstand a major earthquake. ! Nationwide, one in nine bridges is structurally deficient, according to the Transportation for America, a DC-based advocacy group that urges government Other bridges – and other critical leaders to invest in infrastructure projects. According to this group, the I-5 bridge is infrastructure – require seismic not structurally deficient and not a top priority for investment. readiness before the I-5 bridge. ODOT’s own Bridge Condition Report concurs with this assessment. They give It should not be the regional both the northbound bridge, built in 1916, and the southbound bridge, built in 1958, a structural rating of “Fair”, or equivalent to a 3 on a 5 point scale. They are priority. not listed as structurally deficient. !3 CRC FACTS: Presented by 1000 Friends of Oregon A regional seismic and disaster readiness plan should account for Original Safety Current Information Concerns many considerations, including: number of people harmed if infrastructure fails; the use of the asset in facilitating response and Current Issue: One car The I-5 Bridge is not the most recovery after the event; and, interdependency with other vital crash each day in the five dangerous in the region. assets after the event. mile CRC project area, including the bridge and - Fremont: 1.53 crashes/ million vehicle miles An agency-by-agency approach to identifying which bridges, interstate into Washington and Oregon. 25% of - Marquam: 0.90 crashes / schools, hospitals, and emergency response facilities most need these accidents occur on million vehicle miles investment is insufficient for state or regional decision-making. the bridge itself. - I-5: 0.88 crashes /million However, in this case, ODOT’s own seismic report identified other vehicle miles bridges that need seismic readiness investment before the I-5 bridge, and also many other projects where investment would be Current Issue: Pathways Bike and pedestrian more valuable for the region and state. and sidewalks expose advocates have raised cyclists and pedestrians concerns that the proposed to traffic noise, dust, design is dark and 4. ALTERNATIVE PLANS debris and fumes, and are unwelcoming, and that the Voting against the “Oregon Only” plan now is not a vote too narrow for multiple multi-block spiral “on ramp” against finding a solution to the I-5 bridge concerns. users. Areas leading to will be difficult for many the bridge lack bike lanes riders. Instead, it gives decision-makers time to examine the alternatives or sidewalks, possibly in light of current information. Federal funding does not require a endangering cyclists and quick decision for a project of this magnitude. pedestrians. There is no easy fix for a complex regional problem such as this. Future Issue: The CRC This is based on the Alternatives to the CRC that better meet our shared interests will has claimed that “without assumption that travel over key improvements in the the bridge will increase require due diligence, engineering, environmental assessment, and project area, the number significantly over the coming community engagement.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Interstate Bridge Replacement Program December 2019 Progress Report
    Interstate Bridge Replacement Program December 2019 Progress Report December 2019 Progress Report i This page intentionally left blank. ii Interstate Bridge Replacement Program December 2, 2019 (Electronic Transmittal Only) The Honorable Governor Inslee The Honorable Kate Brown WA Senate Transportation Committee Oregon Transportation Commission WA House Transportation Committee OR Joint Committee on Transportation Dear Governors, Transportation Commission, and Transportation Committees: On behalf of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), we are pleased to submit the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program status report, as directed by Washington’s 2019-21 transportation budget ESHB 1160, section 306 (24)(e)(iii). The intent of this report is to share activities that have lead up to the beginning of the biennium, accomplishments of the program since funding was made available, and future steps to be completed by the program as it moves forward with the clear support of both states. With the appropriation of $35 million in ESHB 1160 to open a project office and restart work to replace the Interstate Bridge, Governor Inslee and the Washington State Legislature acknowledged the need to renew efforts for replacement of this aging infrastructure. Governor Kate Brown and the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) directed ODOT to coordinate with WSDOT on the establishment of a project office. The OTC also allocated $9 million as the state’s initial contribution, and Oregon Legislative leadership appointed members to a Joint Committee on the Interstate Bridge. These actions demonstrate Oregon’s agreement that replacement of the Interstate 5 Bridge is vital. As is conveyed in this report, the program office is working to set this project up for success by working with key partners to build the foundation as we move forward toward project development.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia River I-5 Bridge Planning Inventory Report
    Report to the Washington State Legislature Columbia River I-5 Bridge Planning Inventory December 2017 Columbia River I-5 Bridge Planning Inventory Errata The Columbia River I-5 Bridge Planning Inventory published to WSDOT’s website on December 1, 2017 contained the following errata. The items below have been corrected in versions downloaded or printed after January 10, 2018. Section 4, page 62: Corrects the parties to the tolling agreement between the States—the Washington State Transportation Commission and the Oregon Transportation Commission. Miscellaneous sections and pages: Minor grammatical corrections. Columbia River I-5 Bridge Planning Inventory | December 2017 Table of Contents Executive Summary. .1 Section 1: Introduction. .29 Legislative Background to this Report Purpose and Structure of this Report Significant Characteristics of the Project Area Prior Work Summary Section 2: Long-Range Planning . .35 Introduction Bi-State Transportation Committee Portland/Vancouver I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership Task Force The Transition from Long-Range Planning to Project Development Section 3: Context and Constraints . 41 Introduction Guiding Principles: Vision and Values Statement & Statement of Purpose and Need Built and Natural Environment Navigation and Aviation Protected Species and Resources Traffic Conditions and Travel Demand Safety of Bridge and Highway Facilities Freight Mobility Mobility for Transit, Pedestrian and Bicycle Travel Section 4: Funding and Finance. 55 Introduction Funding and Finance Plan Evolution During
    [Show full text]
  • Frog Ferry Presentation
    Frog Ferry Portland-Vancouver Passenger Water Taxi Service Frog= Shwah-kuk in the Chinookan Tribal Language, Art: Adam McIssac CONFIDENTIAL-Susan Bladholm Version 2018 Q1 Canoes and Frog Mythology on the Columbia & Willamette Rivers The ability to travel the waters of the Columbia and Willamette rivers has allowed people to become intertwined through trade and commerce for centuries by canoe. The journal entries of Lewis and Clark in 1805 described the shores of the Columbia River as being lined with canoes elaborately carved from cedar trees. The ability to navigate these waterways gave the Chinook people control over vast reaches of the Columbia River basin for hundreds of years. The area surrounding the Columbia and Willamette rivers is steeped in a rich mythology told to us through early ethnographers who traveled the river documenting Native American inhabitants and their culture. According to Chinookan mythology, Frog (Shwekheyk in Chinook language), was given the basics of weavable fiber by his relatives, Snake and omnipotent Coyote. With this fiber, Frog was given the task of creating the cordage for the weaving of the first fishing net. With this net, made from fibers of nettle plants, Frog had made it possible for the new human beings to catch their first salmon. Coyote tested the net, with the guidance and wisdom of his three sisters, thereby establishing the complex set of taboos associated with the catching of the first salmon of the season. The Chinook people would never eat or harm Frog for his association to them would always protect him. That is why you should always step around frogs and never over them.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Technical Report for the Final Environmental Impact Statement
    I N T E R S TAT E 5 C O L U M B I A R I V E R C ROSSING Transit Technical Report for the Final Environmental Impact Statement December 2010 Title VI The Columbia River Crossing project team ensures full compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by prohibiting discrimination against any person on the basis of race, color, national origin or sex in the provision of benefits and services resulting from its federally assisted programs and activities. For questions regarding WSDOT’s Title VI Program, you may contact the Department’s Title VI Coordinator at (360) 705-7098. For questions regarding ODOT’s Title VI Program, you may contact the Department’s Civil Rights Office at (503) 986- 4350. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information If you would like copies of this document in an alternative format, please call the Columbia River Crossing (CRC) project office at (360) 737-2726 or (503) 256-2726. Persons who are deaf or hard of hearing may contact the CRC project through the Telecommunications Relay Service by dialing 7-1-1. ¿Habla usted español? La informacion en esta publicación se puede traducir para usted. Para solicitar los servicios de traducción favor de llamar al (503) 731-4128. Cover Sheet Transit Technical Report Columbia River Crossing Submitted By: Elizabeth Mros-O’Hara, AICP Kelly Betteridge Theodore Stonecliffe, P.E. This page left blank intentionally. Interstate 5 Columbia River Crossing i Transit Technical Report for the Final Environmental Impact Statement TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • White Salmon Interstate Bridge Replacement Supplemental Draft EIS I
    ODOT Key No.: 21280 This page intentionally left blank. This page intentionally left blank. Notice of Document Availability This Supplemental Draft EIS is available for review at the following locations: Port of Hood River (by appointment) 1000 E. Port Marina Drive Hood River, OR 97031 Note: Washington residents can contact the Port to schedule an appointment to view the document in Klickitat County White Salmon Valley Community Library (limited services during the COVID-19 pandemic) 77 NE Wauna Avenue White Salmon, WA 98672 Stevenson Community Library (limited services during the COVID-19 pandemic) 120 NW Vancouver Avenue Stevenson, WA 98648 These documents are also available on the Project website: https://portofhoodriver.com/bridge/bridge-replacement- project/. At the time of publication, Port of Hood River offices are closed due to COVID-19. If you would like to review a hard copy of the Supplemental Draft EIS, please contact the Port at [email protected] or 541-386-1645 to make arrangements for review of the hard copy. The Supplemental Draft EIS can also be viewed at the White Salmon Valley Community Library and the Stevenson Community Library which are open with limited services during the COVID-19 pandemic. How to Submit Comments Written comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS can be submitted during the public comment period (November 20, 2020, through January 4, 2021) by email to [email protected] or regular mail to: Hood River Bridge Supplemental Draft EIS Kevin Greenwood Port of Hood River 1000 E. Port Marina Drive Hood River, OR 97031 Comments can be submitted orally and in writing at the public hearing for the Supplemental Draft EIS on December 3, 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • FY 2010-11 Unified Planning Work Program
    FY 2010-11 Unified Planning Work Program Transportation Planning in the Portland/Vancouver Metropolitan Area Metro Tualatin Hills Parks & Recreation City of Damascus City of Milwaukie City of Portland City of Wilsonville (SMART) Clackamas County Multnomah County Washington County TriMet Oregon Department of Transportation Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council Adopted April 15, 2010 FY 2010-11 Unified Planning Work Program Transportation Planning in the Portland/Vancouver Metropolitan Area Metro Tualatin Hills Parks & Recreation City of Damascus City of Milwaukie City of Portland City of Wilsonville (SMART) Clackamas County Multnomah County Washington County TriMet Oregon Department of Transportation Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council This Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) has been financed in part through grants from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and the Oregon Department of Transportation. The views expressed in this UPWP do not necessarily represent the views of these agencies. Table of Contents Page Overview i Metropolitan Portland Map iv Self-Certification Resolution v Metro Projects I. Transportation Planning Regional Transportation Planning* .............................................................................. 1 Best Design Practices in Transportation ...................................................................... 7 Making the Greatest Place Transportation Support* .................................................. 10 Transportation System Management
    [Show full text]
  • Hood River Bridge Replacement Environmental Studies, Design and Permit Assistance APRIL 25, 2018 April 25, 2018
    CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR Hood River Bridge Replacement Environmental Studies, Design and Permit Assistance APRIL 25, 2018 April 25, 2018 ATTN: Dale Robins Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council (RTC) 1300 Franklin Street, 4th Floor Vancouver, Washington 98660 Re: Response to RFP Consultant Services for Hood River Bridge Replacement Environmental Studies, Design and Permit Assistance Dear Mr. Dale Robins and Selection Committee, For nearly 95 years, travelers have crossed the Columbia River using the Hood River Bridge, which connects Hood River, Oregon and the communities of White Salmon and Bingen in Washington state. While the travelers are diverse - farmer, hiker, trucker, tugboat operator, windsurfer - their need is the same: a safe, reliable connection between Oregon and Washington. Today, the Hood River Bridge is failing to meet modern transportation demands: deteriorating bridge members, combined with dimensional and weight restrictions for trucks, hamper the structure’s effectiveness and, quite possibly, the regional economy. The replacement of the bridge is a critical transportation improvement needed to support the interstate travel of motorized vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists, and marine freight transport, which have significant local and regional economic and quality of life benefits. In 1999, a campaign to replace the existing bridge began, which then culminated into the 2003 Draft EIS, which was completed by Parsons Brinkerhoff now WSP. Following the Draft EIS, the firm conducted a Bridge TS&L study. From
    [Show full text]
  • Robert Barnard
    Robert Barnard Professional Experience: TriMet, Portland, Oregon Portland-Milwaukie Light Rail Transit Project Director 2008 to present Has primary responsibility for all aspects of project development and delivery, including final design and construction contracts. Manages staff responsible for administration of all design and construction contracts. Responsible for internal/external communications regarding project issues, and coordination with third parties. Monitors and reports cost and schedule status, change control and claims administration. Represents project to outside agencies and interests including the Federal Transit Administration, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and state and local governments. Has executive level role in negotiations and dispute resolution with contractors. Reports to the Executive Director, Capital Project Division. Mall Light Rail Project Design/Construction Director 2007 to 2009 Held primary responsibility for all contracts in $220 million Mall project, including the CM/GC civil/trackwork/systems contract.. Managed staff responsible for administration of all Mall contracts. Responsible for internal/external communications regarding project issues, and coordination with third parties. Monitored and reported cost and schedule status, change control and claims administration. Had top management level role in negotiations/dispute resolution with contractors. City of Portland, Office of Transportation, Portland, Oregon Project Manager 1992 to 2006 Responsible for successful delivery of large, complex,
    [Show full text]
  • Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Columbia River Crossing Project) 1
    Exhibit B Metro Council Resolution No. 11-4280 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law South/North Corridor Land Use Final Order Columbia River Crossing Project Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Columbia River Crossing Project) 1 1. Introduction 1.1 Nature of the Metro Council's Action This action adopts a Land Use Final Order (LUFO) for the Columbia River Crossing (CRC) Project, which is an element of the larger South/North Corridor Project. The action is taken pursuant to Oregon Laws 1996 (Special Session), Chapter 12 (referred to herein as "House Bill 3478" or "the Act"), which directs the Metro Council (Council) to issue LUFOs establishing the light rail route, light rail stations, park-and-ride lots and maintenance facilities, and any highway improvements to be included in the South/North Project, including their locations (i.e. the boundaries within which these facilities and improvements may be located). 1 This LUFO is the fifth in a series of LUFOs the Council has adopted for the South/North Project. The previously adopted LUFOs are as follows: • On July 23, 1998, the Metro Council adopted Resolution No. 98-2673 (the 1998 LUFO), establishing the initial light rail route, stations, lots and maintenance facilities and the highway improvements, including their locations, for the South/North Project. • On October 28, 1999, the Metro Council adopted Resolution No. 99-2853A (the 1999 LUFO), amending the 1998 LUFO to reflect revisions for that portion of the South/North Project extending from the Steel Bridge northward to the Portland Metropolitan Exposition Center (Expo Center), primarily along Interstate Avenue.
    [Show full text]
  • Extending Light Rail to the North
    PHILADELPHIA THOMPSON SR-501 SUNSET -SYL V ERWIN O REIGER MEMORIAL AN SCHOLLS FERR SR-501 Y SUNSET PA TT SKYLINE ON WILLAMETTE SHA TTUCK T S HELENS YEON LOWER RIVER LOWER HUMPHREY POR TLAND 41ST W DOSCH SE ARD 36TH COLUMBIA LAKESHORE NICOLAI 31ST V BLISS AUGHN 93RD 1 19TH The Columbia River Crossing project(CRC) is expanding transit options between Portland and Vancouver. This bi-state project will extend an existing 52-mile light rail system across the Columbia River to connect the region’s largest and most concentrated employment area in downtown Portland with Vancouver. This extension will improve connections, reliability 23RD and travel times for riders. VIST A LOMBARD GREELEY HAYDEN ISLAND The Columbia River Crossing Project (CRC) is expanding transit options in Vancouver and will improve connections, reliability and travel times for riders. LAKESHORE 21ST 21ST W BROAD N MARINE DR MARINE N FRONT SIMPSON 94TH A N JANTZEN N Vancouver Y GOING 16TH N H BERNIE GREELEY A 18TH Y D A 109TH E VE LOVEJOY N I S L I405 A N 6TH D 11TH 11TH D LINCOLN R R FOU KAUFFMAN 9TH L 3RD 4TH LINCOLN B PLAIN TH 13TH ST 13TH 15TH ST 8TH ST 8TH T NAI Portland 149TH BARBUR 45TH O 139TH MCLOUGHLIN BL UNION ALDER VD L KEL HARBOR OREGON N T O N MARINE DR MARINE N M Y A H A COLUMBI N W A WASHINGTON ST HOOD W K MAIN ST I5 I S T ASHING VD L 39TH A N POR DELL Highway Improvements D BROADW Existing Highway and Bridge AY ST Proposed Light Rail Alignment ST 17TH Existing MAX Yellow Line HAZEL Proposed Park and Ride Proposed Light Rail Stations D L MARQUAM B R TLAND VD
    [Show full text]
  • COMPLAINT for DECLARATORY and INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - Page 1 of 39 Case 3:12-Cv-01181 Document 1 Filed 07/02/12 Page 2 of 39 Page ID#: 2
    Case 3:12-cv-01181 Document 1 Filed 07/02/12 Page 1 of 39 Page ID#: 1 TANYA M. SANERIB (OSB No. 025526) [email protected] CHRISTOPHER WINTER (OSB No. 984355) [email protected] Crag Law Center 917 SW Oak Street, Suite 417 Portland, OR 97205 (503) 525.2722 (Sanerib) (503) 525.2725 (Winter) (503) 296.5454 (Fax) Lead Counsel JONATHAN OSTAR (OSB No. 03416) [email protected] Organizing People-Activating Leaders (OPAL) 2407 SE 49th Ave Portland OR 97206 (503) 407.9145 Attorneys for Plaintiffs IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION HAYDEN ISLAND LIVABILITY Case No. 3: __________ PROJECT, HERMAN KACHOLD, DONNA MURPHY, HAYDEN ISLAND MANUFACTURED HOME COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY COMMUNITY HOMEOWNERS AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ASSOCIATION, PAMELA FERGUSON, and ORGANIZING PEOPLE- (Violations of the National Environmental ACTIVATING LEADERS, Policy Act, Administrative Procedure Act and Clean Air Act consistency requirements) Plaintiffs, v. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - Page 1 of 39 Case 3:12-cv-01181 Document 1 Filed 07/02/12 Page 2 of 39 Page ID#: 2 PHILLIP DITZLER, in his official capacity as Federal Highway Administration Oregon Division Administrator, DANIEL M. MATHIS, in his capacity as Federal Highway Administration Washington Division Administrator; the FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, an administrative agency of the United States Department of Transportation; RICHARD F. KROCHALIS, in his official capacity as Federal Transit Administration Regional Administrator of Region 10, and the FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, an administrative agency of the United States Department of Transportation, Defendants. INTRODUCTION 1. This action filed pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • December 2019 Progress Report
    Interstate Bridge Replacement Program December 2019 Progress Report December 2019 Progress Report i This page intentionally left blank. ii Interstate Bridge Replacement Program December 2, 2019 (Electronic Transmittal Only) The Honorable Governor Inslee The Honorable Kate Brown WA Senate Transportation Committee Oregon Transportation Commission WA House Transportation Committee OR Joint Committee on Transportation Dear Governors, Transportation Commission, and Transportation Committees: On behalf of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), we are pleased to submit the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program status report, as directed by Washington’s 2019-21 transportation budget ESHB 1160, section 306 (24)(e)(iii). The intent of this report is to share activities that have lead up to the beginning of the biennium, accomplishments of the program since funding was made available, and future steps to be completed by the program as it moves forward with the clear support of both states. With the appropriation of $35 million in ESHB 1160 to open a project office and restart work to replace the Interstate Bridge, Governor Inslee and the Washington State Legislature acknowledged the need to renew efforts for replacement of this aging infrastructure. Governor Kate Brown and the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) directed ODOT to coordinate with WSDOT on the establishment of a project office. The OTC also allocated $9 million as the state’s initial contribution, and Oregon Legislative leadership appointed members to a Joint Committee on the Interstate Bridge. These actions demonstrate Oregon’s agreement that replacement of the Interstate 5 Bridge is vital. As is conveyed in this report, the program office is working to set this project up for success by working with key partners to build the foundation as we move forward toward project development.
    [Show full text]