MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, May 2, 2000

Council Chamber

Members Present:  Rod Monroe (Chair), Jon Kvistad (Vice Chair) and Susan McLain

Members Absent:      

Also Present:          

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

Chair Monroe called the meeting to order at 1:41 p.m.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 18, 2000, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Marilyn Coffel, 3800 SE 22nd, Portland, OR 97202, represented Fred Meyer and the Greater Brooklyn Business Association, addressed the committee because the next council meeting was not scheduled until May 11, 2000. She encouraged the committee and council to include a consideration of light rail in the wide-range alternative study section of the South Corridor study. She worked with many of the neighbors and businesses in the community. There was no ground swell of support for increasing bus traffic on McLoughlin Boulevard or adding more traffic or HOV (high occupancy vehicle) lanes, because the traffic travelling through her community was mostly commuters. The community wanted to get them off the roads and on light rail. She also acknowledged that the industrial area and Fred Meyer would greatly benefit from being able to transport their employees by light rail. It would save a lot of VMTs (vehicle miles traveled), especially if light rail was connected to the central East Side industrial area, where there were approximately 16,000 employees (approximately 6,000 in the Brooklyn area with approximately 1,800 Fred Meyer employees).

Chair Monroe said he was chair of the South Corridor steering group and he talked to Andy Cotugno, Metro Transportation Planning Department Director. Chair Monroe told Mr. Cotugno that whatever plans Metro submitted to the federal government would have to include all possible, reasonable options in the South Corridor. He did not believe Metro could legally exclude light rail from consideration. However, Metro needed public support. He had always believed the best solution from the new Milwaukie Transit Center north was light rail. And he believed that now more than ever. However, it would require a ground swell of public support, including the Clackamas County government officials and citizens in the northern portion of that county. He planned to meet tomorrow afternoon with Bill Kennemer, chair of the Clackamas County Commission, who was an instrumental element of the entire transportation strategy. He planned to brief Commissioner Kennemer regarding her testimony today. He said Metro would see what it could do.

Ms. Coffel said the members of the militant Carruthers Crossing Coalition have met and talked about generating the necessary ground swell of support for light rail within the community. For the most part, the community agreed on the issue.

M’Lou Christ, SE 13th, Portland, OR 97214, also supported consideration of light rail in the study. She attended community meetings and the process and how to get consideration of light rail included in the study confused some members of the public. The community would consider Chair Monroe’s comments good news. She realized Clackamas County and the Milwaukie area were concerned about the issue. However, it appeared there were possible benefits to travelling to Milwaukie from the Portland area, because of other links that people in other communities were supporting (including the proposed Commuter Rail project) that would make current transportation proposals more efficient and effective. She understood their concern that light rail not link all the way through Clackamas County and the Milwaukie area to Oregon City. She thought that route would be the right thing to do, but it was not their concern. Their concern was that her community should not have to build more lanes of roadway to accommodate the increased commuter traffic and number of automobiles travelling through her neighborhoods. They should have the option to at least study a more efficient solution that would anticipate and facilitate a more efficient regional system in the future with other rail connections in Milwaukie.

Chair Monroe asked Ms. Christ if she was familiar with the proposed Commuter Rail project from Wilsonville north. Metro believed it would be successful because it would connect to light rail in Beaverton. Also, the possible Commuter Rail connection across the bridge to Milwaukie would probably only succeed if it could be connected to the light rail system. Light rail to Milwaukie would allow that possibility. Metro and she were in agreement. He was committed to do all he could to preserve light rail as at least a possibility in the South Corridor.

Ms. Christ said any assistance and information Metro could provide to the community regarding the study and decision-making process (public comments, etc.) would be helpful. They wanted to know how the process was proceeding.

Chair Monroe said she was addressing the committee and Metro’s four top transportation officials.

Richard Brandman, Metro Transportation Planning Department Assistant Director, said Metro was currently discussing changing the schedule for determining when the decision would be made for what would be included in the formal environmental impact statement, presuming there would be a major capital project. Metro delayed that decision from June 2000 until Fall 2000. There should have been general notice of the schedule change sent to the public. He would research the issue and ensure the confusion was resolved.

2.  UPDATE – REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Mr. Cotugno briefed the committee regarding where the Transportation Planning Department was headed with the RTP (Regional Transportation Plan) final adoption process. He described two documents. He referred to the RTP Update: Spring 2000 Adoption Timeline document distributed to the committee at the last committee meeting. (A copy of this document was included in the record.) The framework behind the schedule would produce the draft document for public comment during the 45-day period from May 15, 2000, to June 29, 2000. The department printed the draft RTP, which included the document that was adopted in December 1999 and January 2000 and all the various amendments created during that process. Since then, the department continued to receive public comments that they compiled in a supplement document, 2000 RTP: Supplemental Revisions to Resolution No. 99-2878B and Resolution No. 00-2888. (A copy of this document was included in the record.) The two documents included all the additional comments the department received and any amendments that result from that input. He anticipated further public suggestions for amendments. The department would continue to catalog these comments, and the proposed responses and amendments that might result. Therefore, there would be three pieces (documents) that would represent all the various changes as Metro moved forward. The department would try to keep the process as clear as possible, but it would be constantly in motion.

Mr. Cotugno said the department proposed that the public hearing before council of the RTP Final Draft on June 29, 2000, also include a first reading of the ordinance with the close of the 45-day public comment period. Metro experienced problems in December 1999 when it scheduled a public the same day it planned to adopt the resolution. Therefore, they did not have time to handle all the comments. They had to delay some of the comments until January. The proposed timeline avoided that problem by scheduling the close of the 45-day public comment period on the same day of the first reading. It would allow all the committee work to follow with the recommendations for adoption that would respond to all the comments received during the public comment period. May 2000 would be an important time frame to begin the public comment process. June 2000 would be an opportunity to discuss the issues. July 2000 would be the time to take action and approve all the final details, comments and revisions.

Mr. Cotugno said the department proposed that the main issue and primary focus for discussion remained financing. He provided the committee with a description of some of the financing options his department was preparing information on at the last meeting. They were continuing to prepare information that described other funding scenarios they outlined in the document. He anticipated a JPACT (Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation) discussion regarding only the funding options in May 2000 and June 2000, so the department could incorporate whatever the committee and JPACT decided regarding finance options in the document. The department had not yet made revisions to the finance chapter. They thought it should be discussed further during the next few months of meetings, first.

Mr. Cotugno highlighted and described sections of the two documents and changes that developed. He mentioned development of the fiscally constrained scenario and the air quality conformity connection. The department proposed that they delay conducting the rest of the air quality scenarios until after the document was completed and adopted. Despite comments from the Oregon DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality), it would be too difficult to try to predict the final set of projects that would be included in the RTP. To conduct those scenarios prematurely might also be too expensive, because if the department needed to make changes later they would have to retest the scenarios. Therefore, the department did not have much choice. He also mentioned assumptions of available revenue sources and the 1) fiscally constrained, 2) strategic (priority) and 3) preferred transportation system strategies. He also mentioned the RTP’s planned retention of the Water Avenue ramp as the southbound access to Interstate 5 for the central East Side trucks, a possible substitute project southbound connection from McLoughlin Boulevard directly to the Ross Island Bridge, the current truck route, and both Metro and the city of Portland’s analysis and input on the issue.

Chair Monroe asked how the city of Portland wanted trucks routed to and from Interstate 5 (I-5).

Mr. Cotugno also discussed other unresolved issues including the classification of Foster Road, and the use of Powell and 172nd.

Chair Monroe asked if Clackamas County planned some boulevard enhancements along the route to Jenny Road.

Mr. Cotugno said yes, but not four- or five-lane expansion.

Chair Monroe agreed. However, currently the section between 122nd and 136th was two-laned, with a turning lane in the middle and pedestrian walkways and bicycle paths on both sides. If the road were extended to 172nd with traffic signals at 162nd, and at Jenny Road at 172nd, it would improve the route through that area. He traveled that road frequently. It was a very dangerous and congested section of highway.

Mr. Cotugno said at the JPACT meeting next Thursday, May 11, 2000, the department planned to ask to release the 2000 RTP Supplemental Revisions document, presented before the

committee today, as the public review document. As before, the department requested consent from the committee, provided there were not specific changes they wanted to discuss.

Councilor Kvistad asked Mr. Cotugno to discuss the Highway 99W, 6.7.7 - Area of Special Concern section of changes. He said it changed from Metro performing some type of capacity improvements to declaring the road a problem but proposing nothing.

Mr. Cotugno described the department’s comments in the document.

Councilor Kvistad asked what kind of feedback the department received from officials in Washington County.

Mike Hoglund, Transportation Planning Department Manager, said TPAC (Transportation Policy Alternatives Committee) was concerned about the operation of Highway 99W but they voted to approve the language.

Councilor Kvistad asked what kind of feedback the department received from elected officials in Washington County. He anticipated they would be upset.

Mr. Cotugno said no. He asked Councilor Kvistad to suggest a solution, because the department did not see one.

Councilor Kvistad said they had one and referred to an alternative bypass project. He wanted to provide some direct informational outreach to the elected officials in Washington County (especially Washington County, Tigard, Sherwood and King City) up front, before adopting the proposed changes, regardless of what TPAC decided. This was a big issue he wanted delayed for more work. The issue could generate a lot of opposition from elected officials in Washington County and serious negative consequences for Metro that might appear in the media.

Mr. Hoglund said he and Tom Kloster, Transportation Planning Department Program Supervisor, met and talked to the coordinating committee regarding TV (Tualatin Valley) Highway and the connector, and what they learned about those two corridors. He said it would also be possible to do the same for Highway 99W. He planned to call Washington County staff to schedule time on their agenda.

Councilor McLain appreciated Councilor Kvistad’s comments and referred to the final sentence in the last full paragraph on Page 25 of the document, which described Highway 99W’s expected inability to meet the region’s motor vehicle load and the need for an alternative approach. She said the sentence encapsulated the issue. As with TV Highway, she was concerned that Metro’s RTP offered no solution for Highway 99W. Attempts to make land use decisions would depend on the final RTP adopted by council. She expressed the same concern as Councilor Kvistad that the RTP was incomplete, and would negatively affect future land use decisions. She agreed with Mr. Hoglund that the road could be redesignated on a map but would still fail to meet regional transportation needs.

Mr. Cotugno said with the proposal for TV Highway it would not fail. And that would be the basis for making land use decisions.

Councilor McLain asked what level it served with the changes.

Mr. Cotugno said the current travel demand that the projects were based on, which said it did not fail, accounted for some expansion of the urban growth boundary (UGB) in the area. Any further expansion in the UGB would be a UGB amendment. There would have to be a sufficiency finding, and therefore an analysis of additional growth in the area and whether the system would still fail. There would have to be additional analysis before Metro could draw a conclusion.

Councilor McLain said the RTP had to acknowledge a constrained fashion. She wanted to see a consistent document that made sense. She was concerned that Metro was leaving some roads with no solution and some with a solution that was barely acceptable. Metro needed some degree of understanding of what those choices were and what the RTP was really saying. She thought the language was very clear. Metro needed to identify a solution and also areas of the RTP that needed further work. There had to be some consistent rules or guidelines throughout the document that Metro could use when doing the additional work toward making the land use decisions. She asked the department to show her how to interpret the RTP information presented to her. Otherwise, unless the committee and council discussed every change, she would be on her own.

Mr. Hoglund said the plan was designed based on the priority system, which was the department considered the most prudent financial approach. It did not solve every problem. Even the preferred system did not solve all the problems in some transportation corridors. Under the Transportation Planning Rule, they indicated the ability to perform refinement studies in a number of corridors, including TV Highway. The problem with Highway 99W was the department had not determined a solution for the localized access traffic need. That indicated the local jurisdictions (Washington County, Tigard, King City and Sherwood) would have to perform a joint corridor study, and also consider the land uses and development patterns that they expected to see over time on Highway 99W and in the corridor as well. The department might have the employment, jobs and household allocation wrong in the corridor, or they developed a master plan scenario that included two and a half hours of failed traffic and the region would just deal with the current situation as a policy decision. It was a very difficult corridor.

Councilor McLain referred to the refinement study regarding TV Highway that Mr. Hoglund mentioned. What he showed her was not perfect and it might fail, but it answered at least some of the growth and congestion questions. She agreed with Councilor Kvistad that communities would not consider a non-solution helpful and might question a perceived lack of leadership at Metro. At least if we have on TV Highway a refinement study option that might not be perfect, but it still might indicate how to get there. She addressed Mr. Hoglund’s comments regarding efforts made by smaller jurisdictions to determine solutions, and said if those efforts were connected to the regional system, Metro had to be part of that solution. Metro needed to determine how to address those regional issues.

Mr. Hoglund said Highway 99W was also a state highway. It would be a livability joint effort where Metro and every jurisdiction concerned would help determine how to address problems associated with Highway 99W.

Councilor McLain suggested the department might want to change the language to recognize that Metro had to be part of a proactive joint effort and place Highway 99W at the top of the priority list of work plans.

Chair Monroe asked if there were any studies that indicated the traffic on Highway 99W had increased significantly because of the casinos in Grande Ronde and Lincoln City.

Mr. Cotugno said casino traffic represented a small number because the problem was dealing with such large volumes of traffic. However, according to those jurisdictions, it was significant.

Chair Monroe said when he drove to McMinville, Newberg or Lincoln City, he went through Tualatin and used side roads. An expressway connection across the area would have a significant effect. If it worked as planned, the only people who would use Highway 99W through Tigard and King City would be motorists who accessed that area.

Mr. Cotugno said yes, it would shift a substantial portion of the existing through traffic off Highway 99W and onto I-5.

Chair Monroe asked if the expressway planned for south of Sherwood would be four-laned and limited access like Interstate 217.

Mr. Cotugno said yes.

Chair Monroe mentioned the Water Avenue issue. He asked if it was more efficient to make the connection onto the Ross Island Bridge than to build the Water Avenue ramp. Rigging a ramp from Martin Luther King Boulevard onto the Ross Island Bridge would be a major project.

Mr. Cotugno said the same would be true for a Water Avenue ramp.

Chair Monroe said trucks would still have to cross the very congested Ross Island Bridge and perform a cloverleaf maneuver to move onto I-5. It seemed more efficient to build the Water Avenue ramp. He asked if he was correct that the fiscally constrained strategy was on the bottom of the heap and Metro did not have enough money to fund even that strategy.

Mr. Cotugno said fiscally constrained was the bottom of the heap, but it was the revenue that the department reasonably expected to be available.

Chair Monroe thought it would include the 5 cents from Ballot Measure 82.

Mr. Cotugno said there were two parts of the cost 1) maintenance and 2) construction. The department assumed the state gas tax pennies would fund maintenance (which had fallen behind), not construction. Revenue sources the department identified that could pay for construction of the RTP were restricted to funding for construction only. These sources could not be used to fund maintenance, even if the region fell behind. The systems development charges, urban renewal districts, the MSTIP (Metropolitan State Transportation Improvement Program), flexible federal dollars and the $54 million 2 cent state gas tax increase for modernization dedicated by statute to modernization were all capital funding sources only. The state legislature would have to change the law to divert those revenue sources to fund maintenance. Therefore the department assumed a very conservative set of revenue sources would be available for implementation of the RTP.

Chair Monroe asked if the department still believed, even if Measure 82 was defeated, revenue for the fiscally constrained strategy would be available.

Mr. Cotugno said yes.

Mr. Hoglund said the fiscally constrained strategy included a gas tax increase assumption over time. But it just raised the Metro maintenance standard for regional roads from 77 percent fair or better condition (or kept the standard from falling below that figure) up to the state standard. None of the funding would be spent on transportation capital projects. It included some new revenue but did not affect what was in the plan.

Chair Monroe said he thought it included a gas tax increase of 1 cent each year and 2 cents every fourth year.

Mr. Hoglund said yes, but none of it would be spent on capital. It included the portion of the bond program that Metro would be voting on. It also included the $189 million of projects but not the revenue source.

Mr. Cotugno said it would take 20 years to receive the funding instead of 6. The bond list was in the fiscally constrained strategy because of the 20-year revenue stream. There was no funding beyond that available from ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation).

Chris Deffebach, Principal Transportation Planner, Metro Transportation Planning Department said approximately one year ago RTC (Regional Transportation Council) and JPACT created the Bi-State Transportation Committee to advise them regarding issues of bi-state significance. The group had met monthly since September 1999. One issue they discussed frequently was an RTC study of HOV lanes. In particular, they examined options for incorporating HOV lanes on I-5. Last Thursday, the Bi-State Transportation Committee approved Resolution 04-00-01, I-5 HOV Facility Policy Recommendations, which provided both short-term and long-term policy direction for HOV lanes.

Ms. Deffebach said the Bi-State Transportation Committee brought the document and issue before the Metro Transportation Planning Committee today because they planned to present it to JPACT for their review next Thursday, May 11, 2000. The RTC also planned to review the document today and take action in June 2000. The Bi-State Transportation Committee proposed that JPACT follow with a similar action. There were a couple of significant new pieces of advice for JPACT and RTC in the document. She described the staff report document Consideration of Resolution 04-00-01, I-5 HOV Facility Policy Recommendations. (A copy of this document was included in the record.)

COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

None.

ADJOURN

There being no further committee business, Chair Monroe adjourned the meeting at 2:26 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Andy Flinn

Council Assistant

Attachments to the Record

Metro Transportation Committee meeting of May 2, 2000

i:\minutes\2000\tranplan\50200tpm.doc