MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Thursday, June 22, 2000

Council Chamber

Members Present:  Rod Monroe (Chair), Jon Kvistad (Vice Chair) and Susan McLain (on the speaker phone)

Members Absent:

Also Present:

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

Chair Monroe called the meeting to order at 3:36 p.m.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 16, 2000, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

2.  RESOLUTION NO. 00-2960A, FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPROVING INTERSTATE-5 HIGH-OCCUPANCY VEHICLE (HOV) FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS.

Chris Deffebach, Transportation Department, Principal Transportation Planner-RTP (Regional Transportation Plan), described the resolution and its Interstate-5 HOV policy recommendations. It was reviewed and approved by the Bi-State Transportation Committee and the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council (SWRTC). The resolution was also reviewed and recommended for approval by JPACT (Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation). (A copy of this document was included in the record.)

Chair Monroe said the resolution recognized that HOV was not feasible on the current I-5 bridge.

Ms. Deffebach agreed. The resolution considered that issue a long-term goal.

Chair Monroe said, in the short term, HOV would not be required northbound north of the I-5 Bridge. This was the first action item produced by the Bi-State Transportation Committee, which had been meeting since Fall of 1999. It was approved unanimously by JPACT and the SWPTC in similar forms.

Councilor McLain asked how the Metro Transportation Department would integrate the resolution in the overall approach, and the actions and solutions that people were analyzing. She mentioned the bridge, an eventual light rail link and other inter-modal connections between Oregon and Washington.

Chair Monroe addressed Councilor McLain’s question. He said the resolution was a short-term solution or improvement to the transit capabilities on the existing I-5 roadway. It would in no way hamper, but instead contribute to, the region’s efforts toward creating a long-term solution, which would probably include some type of new or reconfigured I-5 bridge and a light rail line.

Chair Monroe assigned Councilor Kvistad to carry the resolution to the Metro Council.

3.  RESOLUTION NO. 00-2963, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECLARING THAT THE WEEK OF JULY 24-28, 2000, BE “CAR FREE AND CAREFREE WEEK” TO ENCOURAGE CITIZENS TO COMMUTE TO WORK BY BUS, MAX, BIKE OR WALKING.

Marilyn Matteson, Transportation Department, Associate Public Involvement Planner-RTP, said her department was contacted by the Westside Transportation Alliance (WTA), which started the “Car Free and Carefree Week” in 1999. The WTA asked Metro to declare a proclamation and help them celebrate the week. The WTA was joined by 4 Transportation Management Areas (Tualatin, Lloyd District, Columbia Corridor and Swan Island). The group encouraged regional residents to leave their cars at home and try some alternative way to travel to work. If they did it at least twice a week they could apply for some nice prizes donated to the WTA. They wanted to promote the event and encourage participation from Metro staff as well.

Chair Monroe said it was a great idea. Metro already had a fairly high percentage of staff that commuted to work by bicycle and/or transit regularly.

Councilor McLain offered to award a dinner for two at their favorite restaurant to the person who travelled the most miles by alternative transportation during that week. Contestants would have to register with Jeff Stone, Metro Council, Chief of Staff, at the council offices and provide a log of the miles they travelled (by bicycle, bus, MAX, etc.).

Chair Monroe assigned Councilor McLain to carry the resolution to the Metro Council.

4.  ISSUES RELATED TO THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Andy Cotugno, Metro Planning Director, said the Transportation Department was nearing adoption of the RTP. He referred to the handout RTP Adoption Package that described various items that would be adopted as part of the RTP. (A copy of this document was included in the record.) It also described a finance chapter and other related issues. The committee and JPACT discussed the finance issues that remained unresolved. Currently, they were trying to resolve that piece of the RTP and create a clear picture of what the department proposed for adoption. He asked Mr. Kloster to explain when the department planned to adopt the RTP, what items were coming forward and what it would look like when presented to the Metro Council.

Tom Kloster, Transportation Department, Transportation Program Supervisor-RTP, described the RTP Adoption Package document. His department provided the handout to MPAC (Metro Policy Advisory Committee) last week to indicate the documents they planned to ask the Metro Council to amend with the RTP action.

Mr. Kloster said the Metro Council scheduled a public hearing to discuss the RTP on Thursday, June 29, 2000. The department created draft versions of the ordinance and resolution for that meeting. The legal council arranged the RTP for council action was to have the federal requirements in the RTP addressed by resolution and the state requirements addressed by ordinance. Metro would adopt the RTP through two separate actions that would cover different parts of the plan. It would not result in two different RTP documents, but it would result in council adoption of the RTP by two separate actions. The purpose was to decouple a federal certification process from Oregon’s land use process. For example, if Metro’s plan was appealed as a land use action, it would not delay the agency’s ability to secure federal transportation funding for the region. The federal element of the plan would be separate and adopted by resolution. Metro could proceed toward completion of the federal certification process, in a relatively short period of time (probably by mid-Fall 2000).

Mr. Kloster said when the department goes before the council next Thursday, they planned to present drafts of the resolution and the ordinance without the exhibits. Then they planned to return to JPACT and MPAC, and then the committee in July 2000 with the TPAC (Transportation Policy Alternatives Committee) and MTAC (Metro Technical Advisory Committee) recommendations regarding individual comments the department received during the last comment period. Then, the department planned to ask the Metro Council to approve the entire package on August 3, 2000. The department was nearing the end of the RTP adoption process.

Mr. Kloster said the department planned a lot of fine-tuning after the ordinance was adopted, but it would prevent everything, including the project list from changing. The department would be able to do their final air quality analysis at that point.

Councilor Kvistad asked if the department had addressed and/or resolved the air quality analysis issues raised at the last meeting, and if the department anticipated any problems.

Mr. Kloster said the department performed an out-year analysis during their last round of modeling since the resolution indicated the RTP conformed. The department believed it would conform. They planned to perform a full-blown and expensive analysis after the Metro Council ordinance is in place so the projects would not change. The project would need to be firm once the department had done the air quality analysis. The department still had a few more comments to address regarding how to revise projects. They expected that probably a few of the projects would change as part of the Metro Council ordinance. In August 2000, the department planned to perform another round of modeling and then all the mid-year calculations on air-quality. They also planned to meet with federal government representatives in late September 2000 to discuss certification and demonstrate Metro’s compliance with the federal Air Quality Act.

Councilor Kvistad asked if the efforts were all inter-coordinated. He remembered issues regarding when they would come forward and the Metro Council and the committee’s ability to move the department’s agendas forward.

Mr. Kloster said one of the comments the department received was from the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) regarding incorporating the financially constrained plan in the main document. The department treated it as a technical exercise by putting it in the appendix of the RTP and focusing on the strategic plan, which was what the department thought was the most adequate to serve the region’s 20-year needs. The financially constrained system was less than a third the size of the strategic system. Therefore, it did not function very well. The FHA commented that Metro needed to incorporate the financially constrained plan in the main body of the RTP. So one of the supplemental revisions the department planned to bring back before the council was some new text to accomplish that.

Mr. Cotugno said the last time the department conducted air quality conformity was in October 1999. They demonstrated conformity but were right on the margin. In fact, they had trouble in a sub-area. The department had not performed the modeling for the intermittent, intervening years. They had to do it for a series of milestone years: five, ten, fifteen years. They had performed modeling for the full 20-year time frame, which demonstrated conformity. Therefore, the department was confident modeling would demonstrate conformity at the intervals as well.

Mr. Cotugno said the department had disagreed with DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality) regarding the right time to perform the quantitative modeling analysis. The department always contended Metro should decide what they want to adopt and then check to see if it conformed. Otherwise, until Metro knows what all the projects will be, they will continue to change and create a moving target, in terms of measuring air quality conformity.

Mr. Cotugno said DEQ wanted Metro to have the air quality conformity modeling completed now, while Metro planned to adopt the RTP. The department disagreed because the RTP would continue to change until it was adopted. Therefore, the department checked air quality by performing the one out-year 20 years out to determine whether the RTP would be in conformity. The models indicated it would be, but the RTP will change, because the department planned to make minor adjustments to a few projects based on requests from certain regional jurisdictions. But the changes would still require the department to revise the final conformity analysis. The committee members might hear some complaints at JPACT about the fact that the department had not completed a conformity analysis. The department could constantly spend funding performing expensive modeling every time there was a new change. This waste of resources was what the department was trying to avoid.

Councilor Kvistad said he was worried about the air quality conformity issue also, which Metro had encountered before. He suggested the department, up front, walk JPACT through the process and explain why the conformity analysis had not been completed yet. That might reassure those people concerned about the issue, and help move the RTP adoption forward.

Mr. Cotugno said that the department was committed to meeting the federal requirements. Assuming the RTP was adopted in the next month, and the department returned with the air quality conformity determination fully complete, the department planned to present another resolution to the committee and council in Fall 2000 that would acknowledge that the RTP conformed. If it did not conform the department would make the necessary changes to achieve conformity. Then Metro could submit it to the federal government. Until Metro could demonstrate air quality conformity, the agency could not submit the RTP to them for approval. The resolution would represent the final public decision making process and would finally satisfy the DEQ.

Mr. Kloster said the debate regarding the financially constrained system and the air quality conformity issues was caused by the belief that if the system was reduced to the much smaller dollar amount, projects that a particular individuals did not want included in the plan could be eliminated. However, the financially constrained system had approximately the same modal balance as the strategic system. Even though the financially constrained system was much smaller, it provided roughly the same outlay of dollars to different modes of transportation. Therefore, it would not accomplish what they wanted. That would also quiet the discussion regarding the air quality issue.

Councilor McLain mentioned the changes to the Regional Framework Plan; Chapter 2, Title 6 and Title 2 requirements and other miscellaneous amendments. She asked if there was a staff response that explained why those amendments still met the goals and vision of the overall intermodal system. She asked if it would be available for her to review next week.

Mr. Kloster said the amendments were in the staff comment and response format and there was a discussion of each one. The department planned to go before MPAC next week to preview the items that affected the RFP, the functional plan and any land issues that resulted as part of the RTP public comment period. They planned to ask MPAC to act on those comments and provide recommendations to the council.

Councilor McLain said she was working through the Title 3 requirements and the Goal 5 work the council was doing and asked if the RTP was friendly to the other types of Metro title requirements in the functional plan. She asked if Mr. Kloster’s department ran the RTP through that filter. She asked if the amendments passed the test of some of the other title requirements.

Mr. Kloster said he thought so. The most obvious were Title 3 and the Greenspaces Master Plan. The department met with Metro’s Regional Parks and Greenspaces staff. They did not have many comments. However, they planned to submit a few comments regarding the RTP within the next couple of days. There was a big, outstanding set of issues on Title 3. The department still had the green streets project ahead of them to address management of street connectivity and stream protection at the same time. Therefore, the department kept a placeholder in Chapter 6 of the RTP to include future amendments related to street connectivity, stream protection and storm water runoff on the major street system and culverts.

Councilor McLain mentioned Mr. Kloster’s discussion of the resolution that addressed federal issues and the ordinance that addressed state issues. She asked if Metro was waiting for the final modeling, for inclusion in the final exhibit, after all the amendments were approved.

Mr. Kloster said the exhibits would include the resolution draft of the RTP the council approved and the supplemental revisions (changes to the resolution draft the council had not considered) the department received comments about from TPAC and JPACT in early May 2000. The exhibits would also include any other changes that TPAC recommended. Most of the exhibits were currently available. He said the department might put them in the document in draft form.

COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

Councilor Kvistad asked for a JPACT update or discussion of the Northwest Natural issues.

Mr. Cotugno said the federal Senate Appropriations Committee acted. Therefore, Metro had to decide whether or not there was some communication the agency wanted to provide to its delegation for conference. The Senate bill mentioned all three regional projects: (1) Interstate Max (I-MAX), (2) commuter rail and (3) support of a state-wide bus program that also included the region’s McLoughlin Corridor project, but it did not provide dollar figures, like last year. However, the House provided dollar earmarks in all three of those areas. Metro needed to communicate closely with its delegation (particularly the Senate members) to assess whether the projects competed with one another, and whether the priorities needed to be clearer. The department was interested in advancing all three projects simultaneously. He believed the delegation understood that. The process would begin one or two weeks after the July 4, 2000 recess when Congress returned.

Mr. Cotugno said, at the same time, the I-MAX full funding contract proceeded through the Federal Transit Administration process. They recommended the project to Congress and were required to submit the full-funding contract for a 60-day comment period before the Senate and House authorizing committees, not the appropriating committees, from mid-June 2000 through mid-August. That process was 60 days ahead of schedule. The administration gave the request a favorable rating and submitted it to the committees for approval. That was promising. This summer, while the committees were considering whether they wanted to fund Metro’s full-funding contract, the appropriations committees would also decide whether money would be appropriated to the projects.

Mr. Cotugno said, locally, Metro held a JPACT Finance committee meeting approximately two to three weeks ago. They heard about ODOT’s (Oregon Department of Transportation) severe budget problems. The commission was deciding what budget request it planned to submit for the next biennium to Governor Kitzhaber. Their budget was due in September 2000. Therefore, they were dealing with a short time frame. Plus, it could change during the 3-step process. The JPACT Finance Committee listened to ODOT and provided feedback, but did not adopt a position. He testified at yesterday’s commission meeting that while there was support for preservation as a priority, efforts had to focus on cost-effectiveness to stretch current funding. The sidewalk and pavement issues had to be detached. He said Councilor Washington mentioned that even if ODOT eliminated every project important to Metro (the land-use connection, multi-modal transportation, modernization and the other projects and programs) they would still be in a deep financing hole, regarding their road preservation and maintenance program. The gas tax did not keep pace with pavement maintenance and preservation needs. Metro expressed concern regarding the degree to which ODOT planned to reduce funding in all those areas for the sole purpose of funding its preservation program. The final area where Metro raised concerns regarded funding to plan for alternatives to state highways. Even without funding to build a project, planning at least showed what the project was expected to look like.

Mr. Cotugno said Dick Reiten’s Summit 2000 organization held an organizing committee meeting approximately 2 weeks ago to launch the next phase of their effort to encourage participation from the business community. They planned to schedule another summit in the Fall of 2000, plus 4 subcommittees (2 substantive oriented and 2 process oriented) to do homework before the summit meeting and create as productive an environment as possible. Tom Brian was a member of one of the two substantive sub-committees that asked if the region had done everything it could to reduce demand (removing trucks from the road during peak hours, shifting hours for public employees to affect the peak period traffic, etc.) and the amount of funding necessary. John Russell was asked to Chair the other substantive subcommittee responsible for raising money, because he was personally interested in examining all the revenue possibilities that might exist. The two process-oriented groups were one for fostering partnerships with the business community and the other for communicating with the public regarding regional transportation needs. The four groups planned to adopt a unified work program to follow for the next 18-month period, at the summit sometime in October 2000. They planned to ask people to serve on the sub-committees during the next 2 to 3 weeks. The sub-committees planned to meet several times during the next 2 to 3 months and provide recommendations for the summit meeting.

Chair Monroe said the Bi-State Transportation Committee met this morning. The next meeting was scheduled for Thursday, September 7, 2000. They discussed the I-5 Corridor Study. All of the members planned to participate in those ongoing discussions and matters related to other issues. The Port of Portland also provided an excellent presentation on the airport study and the needs during the next 20 years. The Bi-State Transportation Committee members planned to participate in that process as well.

Councilor Kvistad asked if the I-5 bridge 2-year study was scheduled to begin next week.

Mr. Cotugno said it had already begun. The organizing committee would be appointed in the next couple of weeks. Consultants helped develop the scope. Other consultants planned to execute the scope soon. The study was nearing implementation, which would last for 24 months.

ADJOURN

There being no further committee business, Chair Monroe adjourned the meeting at 4:12 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Andy Flinn

Council Assistant

Attachments to the Record

Metro Transportation Committee meeting of June 22, 2000

I:\MINUTES\2000\TRANPLAN\62200TPM.DOC