SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
January 31, 2005 Hearing Room 50
3:00 P.M. Tapes 9 - 10
MEMBERS PRESENT: Sen. Joanne Verger, Chair
Sen. Doug Whitsett, Vice-Chair
Sen. Rick Metsger
Sen. Floyd Prozanski
Sen. Bruce Starr
STAFF PRESENT: Judith Callens, Committee Administrator
Gary Roulier, Committee Assistant
MEMBERS PRESENT: Rep. George Gilman, Chair
Rep. Terry Beyer, Vice-Chair
MEMBERS EXCUSED: Rep. Chuck Burley, Vice-Chair
Rep. Deborah Boone
Rep. Scott Bruun
Rep. Dave Hunt
Rep. Kim Thatcher
MEASURES/ISSUES HEARD:
Freight Rail and the Oregon Economy – Informational Meeting
SB 56 – Public Hearing
SB 101 – Public Hearing
SB 102 – Public Hearing
These minutes are in compliance with Senate and House Rules. Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker’s exact words. For complete contents, please refer to the tapes.
|
TAPE/# |
Speaker |
Comments |
|
TAPE 9, A |
||
|
002 |
Chair Verger |
Opens the meeting at 3:07. Opens an informational meeting on freight rail. |
|
FREIGHT RAIL AND THE OREGON ECONOMY – INFORMATIONAL MEETING |
||
|
012 |
Pat Egan |
State Affairs Manager, Port of Portland. Introduces a report commissioned by the Port. |
|
031 |
Lance Grenzeback |
Senior Vice President, Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Submits a PowerPoint presentation (EXHIBIT A), summarizing a report entitled “Freight Rail and the Oregon Economy.” |
|
055 |
Grenzeback |
Forecasts a substantial increase in growth of freight tonnage in Oregon. |
|
091 |
Grenzeback |
Continues with a forecast for potentially congested highways in the year 2020. |
|
112 |
Grenzeback |
Notes that the economy has shifted to designing products to be shipped door-to-door, by truck. |
|
140 |
Grenzeback |
Summarizes the present state of the rail industry. |
|
173 |
Grenzeback |
Outlines the categories of Oregon buyers for freight rail services. |
|
194 |
Grenzeback |
Points out the Northwest rail corridors with significant capacity problems. |
|
221 |
Grenzeback |
Notes that delays, on a per train basis, are approximately twice as much in Portland as they are in Chicago. |
|
261 |
Grenzeback |
Comments on the lack of short-line railroad infrastructure within the state, particularly with the inability to accommodate newer, heavier railcars. |
|
303 |
Grenzeback |
Speaks to the advantages of utilizing the Columbia Gorge Corridor. |
|
334 |
Grenzeback |
Talks about the wholesale trade and food product industries. |
|
393 |
Grenzeback |
Discusses the public role in freight rail. |
|
TAPE 10, A |
||
|
012 |
Grenzeback |
Continues with a discussion of public policy and possible effects on efficiency of rail service. |
|
031 |
Grenzeback |
Outlines some public-private partnerships in Chicago and other locations. |
|
063 |
Grenzeback |
Reviews some possible actions and initiatives for freight rail in Oregon. |
|
075 |
Sen. Whitsett |
Asks where the nearest east-west route south of the Boise Corridor is located. |
|
081 |
Grenzeback |
Responds that is the line that runs from San Francisco to Salt Lake City. |
|
091 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Asks about the rail tonnage flowing from California. |
|
097 |
Grenzeback |
Responds that the report dealt solely with Oregon traffic. Reviews the rail volume originating in Seattle. |
|
104 |
Chair Verger |
Asks what the witness would advise the state with regard to major concerns, particularly with short-line railroads. |
|
121 |
Grenzeback |
Answers that we would need to look at the rail system as a whole throughout the Northwest, or to look at how a short-line would fit into the system. Emphasizes the bottleneck in the Portland corridor, or “triangle.” |
|
145 |
Egan |
Reviews a recent study on the Portland triangle, and what improvements would have the most advantageous effect on capacity. |
|
163 |
Grenzeback |
Adds that the purpose of the study was not to prioritize projects, but to examine the issues, and the possible public policy roles. |
|
181 |
Chair Verger |
Comments that most policy makers do not have an “inside track” on how to improve this infrastructure in a cost effective way. |
|
193 |
Grenzeback |
Notes that the rail industry is under tremendous pressure to make their industry viable. |
|
204 |
Rep. Beyer |
Asks if there are fixes, other than within the Portland triangle, that would alleviate the problems within the triangle. |
|
221 |
Grenzeback |
Responds that as the economy and populations grow, these other areas outside the triangle will become bottlenecks. |
|
236 |
Rep. Beyer |
Clarifies that the triangle is the problem |
|
238 |
Grenzeback |
Agrees, and notes again the existing problems with the short-lines. |
|
241 |
Egan |
Adds that the short-lines do act as a feeder to the main rail lines, particularly for low-value products. |
|
272 |
Chair Verger |
Closes the informational meeting, and recesses the meeting at 3:55 p.m. |
|
RECESS |
||
|
274 |
Chair Verger |
Reconvenes the meeting at 4:10 p.m., and opens a public hearing on SB 56. |
|
SB 56 – PUBLIC HEARING |
||
|
281 |
Judith Callens |
Committee Administrator. Explains the provisions of SB 56, and submits the -1 amendment (EXHIBIT B). |
|
308 |
Paul Donheffner |
Director, State Marine Board. Presents written testimony (EXHIBIT C), and testifies in support of SB 56. Explains the purpose of the bill. |
|
352 |
Donheffner |
Reviews cases of severe carbon monoxide poisonings during “platform dragging.” |
|
383 |
Donheffner |
Outlines the levels of carbon monoxide present during these activities. Adds that other states are addressing the practice through statute. |
|
TAPE 9, B |
||
|
003 |
Donheffner |
Summarizes coordination with the Water Sports Industry Association (WSIA), and notes that the WSIA supports the measure. |
|
029 |
Chair Verger |
Asks if it is correct that the reason people die so readily from carbon monoxide poisoning is that the gas “clings” rather than being expelled. |
|
033 |
Donheffner |
Answers that is correct, and reviews the dangers of carbon monoxide poisoning. |
|
038 |
Chair Verger |
Notes that someone could “very innocently” cause a violation by coming up on the rear of the boat and grabbing the platform. |
|
041 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Asks if, under the provisions of the bill, people would have to shut down the boat motors if persons are in certain positions relative to the motor. |
|
046 |
Donheffner |
Answers that the intent is to prevent people from “platform dragging.” |
|
063 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Cautions about “fall-out” from the measure, similar to the school zone speed limit. |
|
071 |
Sen. Bruce Starr |
Asks about the definition of a motor boat and whether it is defined in such a way that we are throwing “too broad of a net.” |
|
081 |
Donheffner |
Responds that the law would only apply to those boats with a swim step or platform. |
|
090 |
Chair Verger |
Closes the public hearing on SB 56, and opens a public hearing on SB 101. |
|
SB 101 – PUBLIC HEARING |
||
|
092 |
Callens |
Explains the provisions of the bill. |
|
102 |
Bruce Warner |
Director, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). Presents written testimony (EXHIBIT D) and testifies in support of SB 101. |
|
139 |
Warner |
Talks about the importance of the state highway system to the Oregon economy, and adds that access is a key management issue. |
|
156 |
Warner |
Comments that we want to make sure that our investment in our capacity is preserved. Adds that fifty percent of the non-interstate highway accidents occur at intersections. |
|
190 |
Warner |
Summarizes customer service ratings regarding highway access. |
|
193 |
John Jackley |
Executive Officer, Highway Division, ODOT. Presents written testimony (EXHIBIT E) and testifies in support of SB 101. |
|
213 |
Jackley |
Explains that the bill will provide administrative remedies for the department. |
|
233 |
Patrick Allen |
Office of Regulatory Streamlining. Presents written testimony (EXHIBIT F), and testifies in support of SB 101, and adds that his office also supports SB 102. |
|
248 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Asks if the bill allows the department to use the “right of eminent domain.” |
|
263 |
Allen |
Defers to ODOT. |
|
267 |
Jackley |
Responds that the question refers to SB 102. |
|
273 |
Chair Verger |
Closes the public hearing on SB 101, and opens a public hearing on SB 102. |
|
SB 102 – PUBLIC HEARING |
||
|
283 |
Jackley |
Presents written testimony (EXHIBIT G), and testifies in support of SB 102. Explains the provisions of the bill. |
|
319 |
Jackley |
Outlines the advantages of the bill. Summarizes a project where the proposed bill would have saved ODOT over $162,000. |
|
337 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Discusses the provisions of the bill with Jackley. |
|
365 |
Sen. Whitsett |
Emphasizes that he has a problem with setting a precedent with “taking” property, and asks if the property owner could lose value by being denied access. |
|
387 |
Jackley |
Responds that the department is not able to transfer the easement from one party to the other. Summarizes the settlement rate for the department regarding property values. |
|
TAPE 10, B |
||
|
013 |
Chair Verger |
Closes the public hearing on SB 102. Comments on the upcoming out- of-office meeting on February 14, 2005. Discusses arrangements with the committee. |
|
038 |
Chair Verger |
Adjourns the meeting at 4:37 p.m. |
EXHIBIT SUMMARY