MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, December 14, 1999

Council Chamber

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

Chair Kvistad called the meeting to order at 12:39 PM

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 16, 1999, AND DECEMBER 7, 1999, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Chair Kvistad delayed action on the minutes of the December 7, 1999, Transportation Planning Committee, as they were not yet finished.

2.  RESOLUTION NO. 99-2878, FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPROVING THE 1999 UPDATE TO THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND REFINEMENT PROCESS

Andy Cotugno, Director, Transportation Planning, noted the two packets of information submitted into the record. The first item, with white front sheet, is the resolution. Explains the colored pack – stuff from JPACT, blue discussion, green consent items. Since print date for jpact, last Friday, more comments in. buff papers of comments received; green is staff recommendation on each new topics. Number comments in beige that are duplicate; staff didn’t repeat those, added them as comments…. His suggestion: highlight a few substantive items. There are rec’s, detailed, that would be reflected here. Whole pckg would be up for adoption. Staff rec committee adopt all things from jpact. Also adopt a packet of things not adopted by jpact b/c they weren’t ready yet. Adopted subject to . . ?

On specific content, call attention to a couple comments, spec. pg 5 of blue pgs, comment 11.

Ba timing why does it have to be done so fast?

Ac constitutes a whole package of things; move onto funding questions.

Ba if we felt that $ talk needed to be concurrent w/ finalizing things, wouldn’t it be ok to put it on hold till funding done?

Ac rec: adopt by res. Until all comments are in; not adopt full doc by ord until $ component incorporated. Allows people & jurs to go thru more in depth info. 100’s changes, hard to keep track. Complete doc allows them to have finalized copy to look at. Useful tool with 2040 GC to say “here’s what we think we want to do”, allow people to review it.

Ba do we have a here’s what we want to do about $?

Ac no, that’s my point, knothead.

Ba but $ shapes lines we draw

Ac and if something needs to get changed, we’ll do it before it’s adopted by ord. If it can’t be financed, go back & change proposal.

Jk it’s not a static doc, so all those component parts, as things become clearer – May primary, e.g. – once we know $ that’s when picking & choosing comes in.

Ba I hear that, but problem: déjà vu. Been through this several times; constantly waiting for another decision from another gov’t over which we have no control; keep waiting, already 6 years.

Jk problem is, it’ll always be like this. We’re resp as coordinating body. It’s constantly changing. All gov’t levels involved. Nature of our regional job in transportation.

Ba you’re right, but pace of change such that metro is not keeping pace with it. Tried to make some suggestions and get ahead of this curve. We’re creating more uncertainty than we’re resolving.

Jk difference: conceptual planning that we do is conceptual. The basket of where we want to go, that’s what this is. Put everything in there that we want to look at; then someone comes along with basket of money, and we constantly change the context. We have context ability thru our land use authority. This is concrete, specific list of options document.

Db share ba concern. Add’l concern: to be respon, we need to base this on foreseeable revenues. If it’s likely $ isn’t there, I want roadmap for how list will be widdled down. How do we get to what will really happen if $ isn’t there. E.g. odot bonding money; jpact has trouble dealing with that,

Jk we’ve made far more complicated decisions than that at jpact. Bonding program was a little different. There are different levels of jpact that all tie in. we’re in middle – something’s been pre-Metro’d. … out of pool of projects, we’ll select. This doesn’t preclude or exclude anthing, except those that have already been thru Metro filter. Next step is revenue. Sometimes takes years – we’re just now getting to I-5, 217; been on table 6 years.

Ba observation: too much uncertainty. I think may be simple approach: what is most imporant thing for us to work on?

Jk I-5 and 217

Ba he said funding. Continuing to spend resources, and … without …. Efficient; come up with list, decide what’s most important and do it. Don’t want to waste time.

Jk if you don’t tell people what’s on the list, they won’t give you $. Wash co’s been successful because they id’d projects and divided them into pieces. We don’t get funding before we get to projects.

Ba no, we’ve already done projects. Now we get to funding.

Jk right, next step.

Ba why do adopt this by res, send more paper out, and get everyone exercised when we need to agree on funding.

Db same concern. Understand that we want people to have something to look at. E.g. zoo plan (hypothetical). Otherwise, you’re selling people, letting ourselves in for disallusionment.

Ac I’d disagree. My recollection of zoo was a big visionary plan; and council decided to do a portion of it. Came from context of funding 1/3 of master plan. Still the largest by far thing the zoo ever did. This rep’s culminating the effort of how to do 2040. Getting here’s been hard. We based it on . . . we’ve turned region upside down. Difficult process to move from one set of project to another set on the right path. This culminates process of deciding where we should be headed. But sending msg of where we’re heading is an important benchmark. There will always be changes over time, e.g. wash sq plan, ugb issues. We have to adapt as changes occur, but this reps sig change in tr planning. It’s both what ba and db are suggesting. Those are 2 very important benchmarks, but this reps closure on one step so that debate can focus on next step.

Db wouldn’t it make more sense to do it concurently?

Ac too many variables change at one time; impossible to solve. Important to simplify range of conversation. Easier to have public policy debate in stepwise fashion. Basic assumptions have to be made.

Ba in wash co they did all things.

Jk no. they had a much bigger basket of projects. There are 100’s of projects on the list in their tr plans. After they put that tog, they started prioritizing them; took some out of plan and gave it to public. Tough, didn’t know if public would buy it. Then b/c you narrowed list, we’ll fund this part. Then b/c co earned credibility, next packet was funded. Had to list projects first, then from list they bundled them. Understand your point, but that’s not the way it works. That’s how bond measure list went. Same with this. You have different funding sources, and metro is the coordinator for them; we don’t build any of them.

Ba does the concept of how to pay for things shape what you need to do have any meaning for you?

Jk no. we just tried getting a lot of money without telling anyone where it would go, and the public didn’t like it. There are bike & ped things in here, which aren’t my priority.

Ba we’re exactly on opposite sides. I think how we pay for things directly affects how you come up with a list.

Jk different; we already have a road system, we already have a ugb.

Ba we don’t have $ to do what we have now.

Jk then you’ve already changed urban environment.

Db in terms of growth, rather than … on people coming, already here, is maintenance of existing assets v. building new things. Thought section on maintenance need for Willamette River bridges is sobering; seems to be no priority on fixing htem.

Jk different debate. Would you feel better if bridges weren’t in there b/c we don’t think it’ll get funded.

Db I’d raise that as priority. Take care of existing assets before you build new things.

Jk

Ac on list b/c it does address an existing problem, accessing into … existing problem, not a growth issue. 20% of whole project, accesses industrial district; 2 lane connector, not a whole huge thing. Can’t be fixed by bike/ped. Trucks getting to freeway.

Ba fix it with an lid. Use big revenues for the whole region for things that everyone uses: bridges.

Ba wash co- why should we pay for bridges when you won’t pay for xy and z. this is where regional aspect comes in. don’t put mult co projects on list when wash co projects keep getting axed. This is a partnership document. I like and dislike parts of plan. Matter of getting real about what we’re going to do, or are we going to do something? Kids forced into ditches b/c no sidewalks. How we fund separate, but related. These are the projects & priorities that we need to get done in 20 years. Same as 2040 GC; not now.

Db agree with a few things, getting real. That goes to financing.

Jk it’s not a financing document.

Db (missed a little bit); clack co is disaster on 82^nd. Talk about connectivity positive, but I don’t see that list of projects collaborates that process.

Jk this IS the metro philosophy. All these projects have met the 2040 guidelines. The 2ndary part is, that so, we go to funding & prioritizing funding. This is not the odot funding list.

Db I know it’s not; I used it as an example of jpact’s inability to narrow down a list.

Jk but they DID. It was a massive decision - $350 million in critical problems, only $75 million, only $30 of which for roads.

Db not always the big projects also. It’s a series of small decisions. T

Jk that’s whole regional center

Db exactly, traffic flows through grid system.

Jk part of that’s in doc. Commuter rail, 217, greenberge rd improvement – they’re all there. Some will have to be added. That’s the contextual argument, we’re on a continuum. We have jpact on board – ack’s that it’s not perfect, but it’s our list. All jurs have something in the doc. Funding is next, ugly step. Part of reason people don’t support funding is that we’re not clear what the projects are. Can’t ask for money w/o list.

Db not saying don’t give a list. Give a list that bears some relationship to realistic expectations of money. In many cases, not big projects. Solutions to wash sq probably more subtle. Maybe more, smaller roads.

Jk it’s whole reg concept projects. We’re starting that. We can’t wait this is 20 yr tran plan. … e.g. the Round in Bvtn b/c we didn’t have vision to look at overall problem. We knew that regional center would be there.

Ba that’s a more subtle

Jk role of whole region. We decided we want tod, tie in roads & infrastructure. This doc deals with thatt, and with existing roads, and 2040 and what we require as a region. I can’t argue should we scale it back to existing resources? What resources? Then we go to public and say we won’t do anything when we

Db important to make sure reg ctrs work.

Jk we kept them upzoned b/c reg ctr’s not done. Change it then. Not before you get there. Once plans are in, road will change.

Db defeatist twd reg concept. You want high flow, but if you want reg ctr to work, then you don’t want tv to have fast character.

Jk ultimately not, if reg ctr… to downzone an arterial before master plan’s in place, whereas to upzone again and decide later we were ahead of themselves, you’ve put in place – have to go back to public hearings for new road project. That was the debate.

Db that’s what I liked – middle made sense. Acknowledged that it’ll be both.

Jk context – that’s not why we had a problem. We didn’t want to put cart before the house. Don’t change it till you prove that reg ctr will be built and will work.

Db timing issue of what you do first. Make it neutral, Gateway. We have aspirations, they have a lot of assets, max in 3 directions. How are we going to designate 122^nd? High volume? More connections to holladay? Yes. B/c we want tc concept. So if rtp is going to upgrade 122^nd I’d think it was

Jk we didn’t downgrade it yet. Took the middle way.

Db no plan for downtown milw but we’re taking first steps. There’s tc concept, so 99E will support that vision, so there will be access on those parts of McLoughlin. Other portions we want to increase speed. We’re doing it in some places, should do it in more places.

Ba mixing apples and oranges. Gateway different from Milwaukie.

Db get off in a functional grid choices.

Ba not analogous to tv hwy system.

Oh my god just shoot me now.

Db

Ba also has to be fast thru bvtn so people decide to get off road. Like a train stop.

Jk we like to think of it as “commuter rail.”

Ba design issues.

Jk that’s whole point of what we do on the growth side. Some of those components are in this. It relates, but this is different.

Ba expenses we expect to concur. What if we didn’t adopt as res and went into $ debate.

Ac confusing and misleading to public. You’ll start a debate about fudning before a statement is made on what you want to fund. Last 20 min of debate illustrates the problem. A lot of debate about what we’re trying to accomplish. That’s the kind of debate that should be settled first, so you have a goal to try to accomplish. If you jump into $ discussion before deciding what, too hard to get out of debate.

Jk these are the inside decisions we’ve avoided the past years. It’s almost dysfunctional to unbelievable level. This is different; we have buy-in of 27 jurs. They’re on board, they understand there’s a funding portion coming. This is different. That’s the issue, but it’s not an issue for my committee; it’s an issue for the Council. I want to move fwd the draft we rec’d from jpact. Ok not to put fwd w/ rec. also like to debate newer draft comments, series that tpac have agreed to.

Ac none of new ones have gone thru jpacts or tpac. Ex c all comments rec’d, have staff rec’s, but none to tpac and jpact. Closes thurs at council. These are all comments since committee acted. We have rec on how to handle the comments, but you can choose not to. Many comments are no-brainers.

Jk it’d suggest there are a few we can get through – one’s with staff agreement. We can go thru and give thumbs up or down in next 30 minutes.

Ac 2 biggies in supplemental comments worth discussing: #64 (we have existing resources ver of rtp that specifies scenario; not a policy statement, an illustrative to show size of problem). #64 from BTA, then add all these bike projects. If we do that, we have to subtract other stuff. Basic philosophy before existing funds scenario: max what’s already there. With limited $ can’t make major changes. That’s not a fair for one region side v another. Fiscal restraint scenario relevant …. That’s where to debate about what it do. Debating existing money scenarios not constructive. Can do it all day. Another comment:

Db I don’t equate $ constrained system with bike system. I don’t buy comment #64; not consistent to say we need to live w/in

Ac indicative of kinds of debates we’ll have w $ constrained.

Db and such a discussion will have to take place. Isn’t it better to do it now? Isn’t it easier to add things on than to cut?

Ac useful tool to separate discussion is to start with a baseline and then debate. Strategic is a statement that says our top goal is x number of bike lanes.

Jk we have staff recs. I want to rock thru these asap and look for general agreement whether to add them in; or we can hold them off.

Rm b/c of maps in that room, informal sched’d to start in this room in 15 min.

Jk that’s my pref. Either move fwd or hold them & say we’ll do overview at first mtg in jan.

Db rather spend time on it.

Ac if you, in priority order, this is 3^rd. 1^st: does doc rep policy direction of what we would like to get to, not what we can afford. Does it rep a starting point for how do we finance it? Is it a good benchmark for that kind of discussion? 2^nd: do you agree with refinements rec’d by jpact unanimously (also by mpac). These could be treated as further set of refinements that need action at some point.

Jk trying to move back.

Ac for sake of time, my priorities other way.

Jk c version wil go fwd as comments w/o any action today.

Db another tpac this month? No

Jk jpact refinements: motion to accept?

Ba pass onto council to incl in doc, w/ no rec?

Jk understand that if committee wants to send

Db in terms of moving this fwd. There are 3 of us here, committees are meant to censor. Even if I don’t support

M: db w/o rec

Ba 2^nd db comments

V: 3/0

Added to doc.

Res w/ jpact and tpac recommendations attached. Need motion to fwd to council w/o rec.

Ba is implementation section?

Ac, but no financing section. There is $ analysis. What do you mean?

Ba it has implementation in terms of requirements, funding criteria. Lots of aspects besides financing. Last ch covers all those aspects of implementation. In addition there’s a fin analysis.

Db jpact didn’t get to some issues?

Ac ex c.

Jk we decided to set those aside. There will be more on this doc. Add till thurs. look at in jan, then to tpac, jpact, then here.

Ac comment on issue: I think that if council doesn’t adopt 2878, policy statement is that we want to talk more. If we want to debate vision, not adopting res reps need to buy in better whether this reps vision. If you want to debate finance, adopt res as a rep of a reasonable direction. If you try to mix 2, too complicated a debate. If you’re not comfy that this gets us to vision, change that, and put off $ debate till we’re comfy. He sees ba as wanting to head into $ discussion.

Jk

Ba I’m glad he just said that. One issue not settled: connectivity and regionalism of it. Issue of … have we settled that design?

Ac this is proposal for how to do that? It recognizes that we still have refinement to do. Common situation. It’s a conceptual statement, not a design statement.

Ba maybe we have n’t reached a level of maturity (oh really??). people w regional view haven’t stepped (OK, isn’t that the POINT of JPACT? That it’s a regional view?) failing of doc as it stands now. We’ve agreed on 2040, but we have unresolved

Jk and we will for 40 years.

Ac staff has made recs on all components, whether you agree or not. Tv hwy – we thought they were ready to downgrade; jpact disagreed. That’s fair. Separate those arguments, please god.

Db I just don’t we’re quite there yet. No reflection on the effort. To changing the terms of the debate. That’s why #64 gets to me. It’s just another list. I’ve said this to bta – when they say we want x% for bikes; I want gateway & downtown bvtn to work. Looking for outcomes. Have a long way twds making that happen. Not confident that jpact has that goal. Evidence last wk that they wouldn’t. concepts good, going in right direction, but I’m not confident yet.

Ba echo db – my disappointment is more full discussion on $ strategy – how you collect $ should affect how you spend it. That’s the next debate.

Ac my point: we have to go do the apple. We just did the orange. You’re not going to get a bite of the apple with this orange.

Ba

Jk

Ba let clack co pay for sunrise corridor, then they get quiet.

Jk can it use that money on I-5/217?

Ba start clarifying what it’s for. They say it’s connection for the state. Then that’s a state use, not county; state should pay.

Jk cut you off b/c of rm. We’ll have this debate over next few months.

Res – a, b, c removed b/c it deals w/ ex c which we’re not using. Remove #c item in 1.

Jk will carry.

Cc

Ac we have …

Jk last tp mtg of year, ty both for participating in committee. Come a long way. Enjoyed direction of debate, although I don’t agree.

Ba ty for your facilitation & openness to free-form thingking.

Db ty for how you’ve run this committee, able to have these discussions. Great staff.

Jk

ADJOURN

There being no further business before the committee, Chair Kvistad adjourned the meeting at 2:04 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Cheryl Grant

Council Assistant

Attachments to the Record

Metro Transportation Committee meeting of December 14, 1999