MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, May 19, 1998

Metro Council Chamber

Members Present:  Ed Washington (Chair), Susan McLain (Vice Chair), Jon Kvistad

Members Absent:  None.

Chair Washington called the meeting to order at 3:42 PM.

1.  INTRODUCTIONS

None.

2.  CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF MAY 5, 1998

3.  RESOLUTION NO. 98-2648, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO AUTHORIZE $1,082,000 OF CONGESTION MITIGATION/AIR QUALITY (CMAQ) FUNDS IN FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 1998 FOR THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF STANDBY POWER AT UNION STATION AND PURCHASE OF TWO CAB-CARS FOR THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST PASSENGER RAIL PROGRAM

[Editor: There was no discussion on this resolution.]

Chair Washington will carry the motion to a meeting of the full Council.

4.  RESOLUTION NO. 98-2652, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING THE SOUTH/NORTH TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, FINANCIAL ANALYSIS AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION CONSULTANT SERVICES CONTRACT, NO. 904099, WITH THE LARKIN GROUP, INC. TO INCORPORATE ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AND THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Andrew Cotugno, Director, Metro Transportation Department, said this contract is just one among several Metro has, to implement the South/North work program. Because it is a contract, it goes only before this committee and Council, not the Joint Policy Committee on Transportation (JPACT).

He said this contract is with a consultant, the Larkin Group, obtained through a standard Request for Proposal (RFP) process. The original RFP and the associated contract recognized that the work would comprise two stages, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) stage and the Final Environmental Impact Statement stage (FEIS). The RFP provided Metro with the option to extend the contract signed for the first stage of work to cover the second stage, also. The Larkin group has already executed the first stage. It is time to begin the second, and Metro would like to exercise its option to extend the contract.

Councilor McLain said she understood that the Larkin Group, having worked on the first stage, would be the most qualified to work on the second. However, she said Metro must remain competitive with bids and proposals. She asked if there were a way to be certain that it is clear in the original package that this really is a bid process and that Metro is looking for the best vendor who can do both pieces of work.

Mr. Cotugno said the RFP in this case did just that. It sought proposals that were competitive on scope as well as price. The RFP made it clear that the work could cover both stages, but it also left Metro the option of not extending the contract in the event work on the first stage was not satisfactory. He said in this case the process has been clearly competitive for both stages from the beginning.

Councilor McLain asked that it be clearly stated for the record that Metro sought the best combination of price and scope for this project.

Councilor McLain will carry the motion to a meeting of the full Council.

5.  COORDINATION BETWEEN URBAN RESERVE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION-SYSTEM PLANNING

Mr. Cotugno was joined by Mark Turpel from Metro’s Growth Management Department, to provide an update on ways in which transportation-system planning is being integrated with land-use planning in the urban reserves. Mr. Cotugno summarized three areas in which these two planning efforts cross over: 1) in doing the urban reserve productivity study; 2) in updating the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which includes projected growth in urban reserve areas; and 3) in prioritizing projects for the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and the criteria that apply.

Mr. Cotugno said that regarding the urban reserve productivity study, Mike Hoglund from the Transportation Department is working with staff from Growth management on the study team. Mr. Hoglund is helping to define the scope of work and the criteria for selecting and evaluating consultants. The Transportation Department will also work closely with the consultant to evaluate the transportation pieces of the study. Those studies include both local and regional issues. Metro’s primary focus will be on the regional issues, but will act as a resource on local issues, also.

On the RTP update, he said that the models the department is using to predict travel demand by mode and by geographic area uses projections for 2020 from the Urban Growth Report developed by the Data Resource Center and the Growth Management Department. A recent joint JPACT/MPAC meeting reviewed a draft set of projects to implement the policy directions adopted for both a full RTP and a “strategic” RTP. Models to evaluate performance of the draft scenarios use 2020 travel demand forecasts from the Urban Growth Report that the Data Resource Center and Growth Management Department prepared. The predicted 2020 demand accounts for development of about half of the urban reserves, so it will automatically spin off projects into the RTP for the first 20-year horizon of the urban reserves.

The third area of crossover relates to the STIP criteria and the portion of those criteria that relate to implementing 2040. The suggestion there is that urban reserves be treated the same as areas inside the urban growth boundary (UGB) when applying criteria that assign points to projects based on the 2040 design type they serve. For example, if a project in an urban reserve is to serve a town center, then it would get the same set of points as one intended to serve a town center inside the current UGB. Those points as currently recommended assign a first-tier preference to central cities, regional centers, and industrial areas; second tier to main streets, town centers, light-rail station areas, and bus corridor; and third tier to neighborhoods and employment areas. Obviously, city centers do not yet exist in the urban reserves, so point associated with those areas would not apply. But points associated with other area types, such as neighborhoods and proposed employment centers, would.

Councilor McLain said she wants to be certain there is a strong connection between the 2020 traffic demand scenarios and the first tier planning both inside the UGB and in the urban reserves.

Mr. Cotugno said the 2020 growth forecast assumes full growth of tier one. The total acreage in the 2020 forecast is about half the 2040 total; tier one for 2020 is about one-third.

Councilor McLain said she is not as concerned about the amount of acreage as she is about where jobs and dwelling are located. Some of the growth will take place inside the UGB in compliance with existing design types. But the areas for various design types have yet to be designated for the urban reserves. The challenge lies in connecting the timing for designating the design types in the reserves and the travel demand forecasts for the next 20 years.

Mr. Cotugno said the forecasts are a moving target. Metro is using 2020 growth forecasts based on old design types developed for the reserves. Those might change, but the changes are not yet known. However, the changes will be incorporated when they happen.

Councilor McLain said she understood that, but the internal analyses must be kept connected with the changing targets, and that connection needs to be understood and clearly explained.

Mr. Turpel said that the productivity analysis describes the final scope of work (see memo dated May 19, 1998, attached to the meeting record). However, new findings that arise must be brought to the Council to see if further changes will be needed.

Larry Shaw, Metro General Counsel, said discussions so far have been general--i.e., they have concerned the productivity analysis for all 18,600 acres and the 2020 transportation systems. But it might be time to get specific with a few items. For example, the state requires that Metro bring into the UGB by the end of 1998, half of the land needed to provide housing for half the 32,000 households projected to be needed by the year 2000. The rest of the land for the rest of the households must be brought in by the end of 1999. In trying to meet that, the last look ahead the executive department did and reported to the Council is that if the Wilsonville alternative prison site goes, and if the proposed UGB amendment that is part of that package goes, by about September, 605 acres will be brought in. That acreage comprises sites 41 and 42--two specific UGB areas. Part of site 41 is in first tier; it would be a reclaiming of the Dammasch site master plan for 2300 households. The transportation issues associated with this are discussed--but not to any great length--in the UGB status report dated April 20th, written by John Fregonese. Mr. Shaw said that if the acreage is brought in, it will involve the first UGB amendment and could take place as early as the fall of 1998. He suggested that the regional aspects of the transportation issues that action would generate should be addressed sooner rather than later, and in greater detail than Mr. Fregonese’s document addresses them.

Mr. Shaw also said there is a town center already on the 2040 growth concept map in the Pleasant Valley area and Damascus. Presumably those are part of the 2020 analysis. In Pleasant Valley’s case, there are hearings going on now. These hearing are trying to deal with the governance issues, to make some or all of the 1100 acres in Pleasant Valley the second legislative amendment after the Wilsonville one. He said it is not too early to look at where likely movement will be, both in terms of focusing the productivity analysis and in terms of transportation issues for 2020.

Councilor McLain said this brings up the issue of making sure the criteria are changed to meet changing conditions and that STIP projects remain focused on reaching RTP goals. This includes making certain that points are fairly assigned with regard to Tier 1, 2 and 3 in terms of geographic location--that places like Washington County are treated fairly, taking into consideration the differences between suburbs and central cities. For example, in assigning points it must not be assumed that central cities will be the only places where jobs cluster. Suburbs also attract employment centers, as they have in Washington County. She said the transportation questions those issues bring up in terms of building toward the RTP through STIP projects have not been answered yet to her satisfaction. The STIP criteria provide one avenue for doing that. She asked if the transportation planners and the growth management planners were coordinating to meet the larger land-use overlay of RUGGOs and state law.

Chair Washington asked her to restate her comments as a brief question, to clarify her main point.

Councilor McLain asked whether the Growth Management staff and the Transportation staff were working together to ensure that the STIP project criteria and recommendations support 2040 design-type concepts.

Mr. Cotugno said the two departments have not had a recent conversation on that, but they had some in the past. The current STIP criteria are based on those past conversations, now reflected in the Framework Plan. Those conversations created the hierarchy that assigned priorities to particular design types. The criteria assign points with those priorities in mind. Mr. Cotugno said that the number of points assigned, however, could be debated. He said that is the reason the issue of STIP criteria is being discussed now.

Regarding differences between central cities and suburbs in assigning criteria, Mr. Cotugno said central cities, regional centers and industrial sanctuaries are at the top, regardless of their location. Several important places are located in Washington County that are destined to flourish, accommodate growth, and offer opportunities for multi-modal transportation systems. None of the criteria will penalize Washington County. When particular projects start coming in, the Transportation Department will need help from the Growth Management Department in deciding how well the projects support the plan for that particular design type and how the transportation investment can be best used to leverage growth. Keep in mind that the criteria have two halves. The first half addresses traditional transportation concerns such as congestion, delays, and accidents. The second half addresses ways to leverage land-use interests.

Mr. Turpel said that fundamental to all of this is that the Council sets the land-use pattern and the Transportation Department figures out the transportation system to serve that pattern. He said that while the STIP criteria are important, the ultimate aim is to serve the basic philosophy, which is the issue Councilor McLain raised.

Councilor McLain expressed concern that help would not be sought from the Growth Management Department until after points have been assigned to projects.

Mr. Cotugno said projects must be proposed before they can be evaluated.

Councilor McLain said she has two questions: 1) have the right points have been assigned to the right issues? and, 2) would they be appropriately assigned to projects?

Mr. Cotugno said the first issue is being addressed now, and the second will be addressed in October, when it is time to assign points and rank projects. The deadline for submitting projects is the end of September.

Councilor McLain said this presents a good opportunity to demonstrate coordination between transportation and growth management. Answering JPACT’s questions about the criteria provides a chance to practice demonstrating the purpose of the improved RTP and how it serves the 2040 growth concept. Then, that skill can be used to teach the public about Metro’s goals for dealing with growth by using design types and planned density to minimize congestion and control sprawl.

Chair Washington thanked the presenters for getting together to brief the committee on these issues. He said he appreciated Mr. Turpel’s remarks with regard to the relationship between the Council’s role in determining land-use goals and the staff’s technical input in designing transportation systems to meet those goals. He said he would like that thought to be continuously reinforced. He said he hoped to hear more conversations on how transportation planning and growth management can work together. He said those two disciplines need to be brought closer together and the message of their connection needs to be out there.

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS

Mr. Cotugno offered the following updates on transportation items not on this agenda.

Transit Oriented Developments (TODS)

1.  Things are progressing. His staff has sent the full Council a seven-day notice indicating the committee had concurred with proceeding on an acquisition in Hillsboro. The deal is not final yet, but negotiations with the property owners are underway. The Federal Transportation Authority has given verbal approval to proceed and verbal approval on the appraisal price upon which the negotiations are based.

2.  The Request for Proposals (RFP), approved by the Council, has been released and six proposals have been received. They are currently being evaluated. They concern projects located all the way from the east side at 162nd to the west side near Hillsboro. Counting those six, the one in Hillsboro just discussed, and one for which discussions with property owners have just begun, brings the total to eight potential TOD projects. More than one of these projects will receive funding. Councilor McLain will be on the committee scheduled to review the staff evaluations of the six proposals that responded to the RFP. That committee will meet on May 27th.

3.  Part of the TOD resolution the Council approved authorized a state-infrastructure bank loan. That loan was approved by the Transportation Commission last week.

Need to set date for public hearing on STIP criteria.

The next JPACT meeting will release the STIP criteria for public review before final adoption in July. A public hearing will need to be scheduled between that release and adoption. Because the hearing will need to be noticed 45 days in advance, the date should be set now. Mr. Cotugno suggested June 16, at the regular Transportation Planning Committee meeting. Councilor McLain requested that the hearing and the Transportation Planning Committee meeting be moved to Tuesday, June 23, because she must be out of town on the 16th. Chair Washington said he, too, will need to be out of town on the 16th, to participate in a conference of regional governments. He therefore moved the meeting and hearing to Tuesday, June 23, at 1:30 PM.

Councilor McLain asked that staff check with Councilors before setting important dates like public hearings, to be sure they can be there.

6.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

Councilor Kvistad asked to be counted as a “yes” vote on Resolution No. 98-2748.

There being no further business before the Committee, Chair Washington adjourned the meeting at 4: 28 PM.

Prepared by,

Pat Emmerson

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF MAY 19, 1998

The following have been included as part of the official public record.