MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, July 18, 2000

Council Chamber

Members Present:  Rod Monroe (Chair) and Susan McLain

Members Absent:  Jon Kvistad (Vice Chair)

Also Present:    David Bragdon    

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

Chair Monroe called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 12, 2000, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

2.  ORDINANCE NO. 00-869A, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADOPTING THE 2000 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN; AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 96-647C AND ORDINANCE NO. 97-715B.

3.  RESOLUTION NO. 00-2969A, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADOPTING THE 2000 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN AS THE FEDERAL METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN.

Chair Monroe said Thursday of last week JPACT (Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation) decided to postpone final action until August 10, 2000. Therefore, the committee would not be taking final action today either.

Andy Cotugno, Planning Director, referred to the blue packet, JPACT Recommendations on RTP (Regional Transportation Plan) Public Comments. (A copy of this document was included in the record.) The document included all the comments that went to JPACT at their meeting last Thursday. It also described the actions taken by JPACT. He suggested the committee discuss timing and process. He suggested the committee address any additional comments they might be concerned about so that on August 10, 2000 or the next committee meeting on August 8, 2000 they would have to deal with only the one delay issue. And thus if a follow-up action was necessary to respond to what the agency wanted to do in the 6-month period it would be the sole focus of their attention as they tried to finalize the RTP.

Chair Monroe said the one issue some councilors may still have been concerned about was the parking maximum issue. He said Mr. Cotugno might want to comment on that issue.

Mr. Cotugno said he planned to describe for the committee the other comments JPACT discussed. Then he could address any concerns the committee might have.

Councilor Bragdon commented on Comment 1, which was raised before. He said Metro should want to work with businesses throughout the region, not just the Westside Business Coalition (WBC). He wanted to see a more generic reference to industry.

Chair Monroe said Mr. Lohman’s request would have satisfied Councilor Bragdon’s request. He believed Mr. Lohman said he wanted to work with the what would you say if you found only three pieces to go with the other four but why WBC and other private sector leaders from around the region or similar language.

Tom Kloster, Transportation Program Supervisor, said he could check. He referred to the draft minutes from the meeting. He said what Mr. Lohman said seemed fairly exclusive. First, Mr. Lohman discussed the idea, then he made a motion. Mr. Kloster referred to the actual motion. He would check Mr. Lohman’s more discussion-oriented opening comments. He believed that what Chair Monroe said was what Mr. Lohman wished to communicate through the motion. Also, the bullet items from the WBC materials also were broader. The WBC asked Metro to communicate with them and other groups, and listed local jurisdictions, communities and businesses. Their letter was very open ended. However, he offered to revise the language.

Chair Monroe agreed with Councilor Bragdon that the communication process had to be more inclusive, though it was acceptable to mention the WBC.

Councilor Bragdon asked if it was now necessary to mention every business group by name.

Mr. Kloster said the way the JPACT recommendation was worded implied that in August 2000 the council members, Executive Officer and staff, might possibly present something similar to a conceptual work plan that would describe how they planned to achieve everything. That was were it was even more important to describe the process, regarding exactly who Metro planned to communicate with. It might be in the form of a separate resolution or less formal.

Chair Monroe said the department mi want to do the right ght want to refer to “business alliances in the tri-county area” or similar language that would make the communications process inclusive.

Mr. Cotugno said the department would modify the language accordingly before it went any farther. It was the thrust of the rest of the committee’s discussion.

Chair Monroe said Mr. Lohman was trying to achieve an inclusive communications process.

Mr. Cotugno referred to the handed into a committee that suggested and but not if you can fimnd out mentioned above and comments/concerns from Clackamas County and other interests. He also discussed the Draft Amebt why would you notndment, Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Titles 2 and 10 section.

Councilor Bragdon asked if when Mr. Cbut go to the website and sayotugno mentioned parking districts he meant permit parking or was it one of many tools.

Mr. Cotugno said it w so happy to see that the crew was put together and made aware ofas one of the tools. There could simply be hourly restrictions that would limit commuter overflow into those places. There were also other but how possible techniques, but the most common tool was the residential parking permit approach.

Chair Monroe asked if changes to Section D No. 1 and No. 2 were requested by DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality) and satisfactorily addressed their concern.

Mr. Cotugno said yes. The representative at the JPACT meeting said o.k. However, he did not have authority to approve it. Metro still had to apply for the amendment through the Environmental Quality Commission and receive approval. He did not expect a problem.

Chair Monroe asked if former Mayor McRobert was still concerned.

Mr. Cotugno said yes. He did not fully understand why. He had to talk to her.

Chair Monroe reviewed the language and said it looked good.

Mr. Cotugno said part of the confusion regarded the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), which was first written almost 10 years ago. The parking requirement was to reduce parking spaces by 10 percent per capita as a first step toward reducing future spaces over a 20-year period. Metro adopted the ratios, which were intended to slow the growth in the number of spaces in the future, without necessarily eliminating spaces. To achieve the full 10 percent reduction would require a second half to the plan and actually find places where they could proactively redevelop spaces into probably buildings. After they adopted the ratios, the TPR was amended to allow for either reducing spaces 10 percent per capita or adopting maximum ratios on new parking in the manner already determined by the department. Metro could go farther than just adopting maximum ratios and seek to redevelop spaces, but they were no longer mandated to do so. Mr. Cotugno said Commissioner McRobert of the Land Conservation and Development Commission was probably interested in seeking more than the minimum. Metro was satisfying the minimum but they could go farther.

Councilor Bragdon asked if he and the Metro Executive Officer discussed the concerns raised if it would expand the public comment period or did Metro need to schedule more public outreach. He said Metro had provided public outreach for five years.

Mike Burton, Executive Officer, said he discussed the issue with Dan Cooper, Metro General Counsel. The RTP was in the hands of JPACT and had not reached the committee/council. Therefore, the view of the General Counsel was that it was still being considered and therefore the comment period or hearings did not have to be opened.

Mr. Burton had another question that regarded equity or allowances for other groups. There were many groups that had concerns related to the RTP, for different reasons (not enough emphasis on alternate modes of transportation such as bicycles, pedestrian routes, etc.) Therefore, he asked if Metro planned to address concerns from a specific interest group should the agency allow additional opportunities for other interest groups to comment on the RTP also. That was a question the council and the Metro OGC (Office of General Counsel) staff needed to answer. Technically, the council was not required to schedule more public outreach because the RTP had not come before the council for a decision. The issue was not really open for comment. Metro had inquiries from three different news media regarding the meeting in Washington County next week. He told those media it was not Metro’s meeting. It was Washington County’s meeting. He believed that if JPACT wanted Metro to delay adoption of the RTP, it was the council’s decision whether they wanted to schedule more public outreach. If there was any action taken that resulted from the meeting that would amend the RTP in any way, for instance an additional delay or reconsideration for further examination of assumptions, etc., he believed further public outreach would be necessary. The action would request that the council consider the RTP again.

Mr. Burton had a request to send forward to the council an amendment to the 1995 RTP to allow Metro to satisfy air standard considerations under that provision to allow Metro to apply for funding to perform the Washington County Commuter Rail Project as part of that. The problem was the indication Metro received from the federal government was that it was based on the assumption that Metro would approve an RTP in 2000. They did not want to open the 1995 RTP. He asked if Metro would adopt a 2000 RTP considering the request for a 6-month delay from Washington County followed by a 30-day delay recommended by JPACT. He was uncomfortable sending an item forward when the agency was in limbo regarding that issue. He not dropping his support for the Commuter Rail project despite verbal abuse and accusations. He said it was not related to that issue which he still strongly supported. The same group that advocated moving forward rapidly with the Commuter Rail project also recommended a delay in adoption of the RTP. It was confusing. They were not separate issues, but instead were part of the same RTP.

Chair Monroe believed the RTP would be adopted in August 2000. Through discussions he had with representatives in Washington County he was led to believe that if they had more time to discuss some of the alternative language the vote that adopted the RTP would be unanimous.

That was why JPACT decided to delay adoption a month to provide that opportunity. Metro always liked to have a unanimous vote on issues as critical as the 2000 RTP. Metro had to get it passed and on the books. They had been working on it for the past 5 years. It was time whether

The final vote was unanimous or not.

Councilor Bragdon asked if Chair Monroe had successfully scheduled a JPACT meeting for August 2000. There was a question with the availability of the representatives.

Mr. Cotugno said JPACT scheduled a meeting for August 10, 2000.

Chair Monroe said the key players were contacted and planned to attend.

Councilor Monroe asked when the 30-day delay would begin and end.

Mr. Cotugno said until August 10, 2000. It was a 30-day delay for them to consider their action. The Metro Council could still consider its action on the RTP on August 10, 2000.

Mr. Burton said if the meeting took place in August 2000 it would clear the hurdle related to the federal application question he mentioned. The complication was created because JPACT had not planned to meet in August 2000.

Chair Monroe said the committee/council would delay action until JPACT made a decision. The final language would be presented to the Metro Transportation Planning Committee for approval on August 8, 2000, then to JPACT on the morning of August 10, 2000 and finally to the Metro Council that afternoon.

Mr. Cotugno said typically the committee has taken action after a JPACT meeting. However, the committee could discuss any amendment(s) created by JPACT during their meeting, during the council meeting.

Chair Monroe said the committee hoped to achieve agreement by August 8, 2000 so that that would unnecessary and the vote would be unanimous.

4.  RESOLUTION NO. 00-2972B, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADOPTING THE LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR THE WILSONVILLE TO BEAVERTON COMMUTER RAIL STUDY.

Mr. Cotugno said there were two commuter rail related actions that were being advanced through the process. This action would approve the project. The second action, which was stilled filed with the Executive Office but not the Council, would adopt a resolution regarding the conformity determination. The issue Mike Hoglund, Transportation Planning Manager, raised regarding the conformity determination was that Metro had to demonstrate air quality conformity but the agency planned to do that with a very old plan. The federal government was very tolerant in allowing Metro to amend an old plan, because the federal government was expecting a new plan soon (any day). Metro achieved conformity approval for the old plan to avoid a lapse in September 1999. Currently, Metro was almost there if the agency adopted the 2000 RTP. Metro proposed acting ahead of time to pursue pending federal grants to proceed with preliminary engineering that could not be awarded until the agency (1) approved the project, which was this action, and (2) demonstrated air quality conformity, which was the next action. The department did not plan to submit conformity for the overall 2000 RTP until probably October 2000, which would put the grant schedule approximately one month behind that. The action would allow the grant schedule to proceed immediately.

Ross Roberts, High-Capacity Transit Manager, said the item was unanimously adopted by the project’s steering committee, and by the city councils of Beaverton, Wilsonville, Tigard Tualatin and the Washington County Board of Commissioners. The project also enjoyed a substantial amount of public support. There was really no opposition to the project throughout the public process involved with the project. The environmental assessment for the project was complete but was being reviewed by the FTA (Federal Transit Administration). The department was trying to accelerate that process and provide the environmental assessment for public review. The preliminary engineering application was submitted and was also ready to be approved, but it had not yet received FTA approval. The commuter rail option substantially out-performed the best bus or Transportation System Management (TSM) option. Commuter Rail ridership was approximately three-fold higher than TSM. The travel time was less than half that of the bus. One of the impressive aspects of the project regarded travel time. A trip from Wilsonville to Beaverton by automobile in the 2020 time frame was approximately 40 minutes. The same trip on the commuter rail was approximately 26 minutes. The project added a high degree of reliability and speed to the system, and did a much better job of connecting regional and town centers than a bus option. The commuter rail passed through many of those centers along its route. It was a fairly clear-cut decision.

Councilor McLain agreed with the staff report that there was tremendous public support for the project. She agreed with the cities of Forest Grove and Cornelius that they would like to consider expanding the Commuter Rail system to include service links/loops that would serve additional cities (McMinnville, Forest Grove and Cornelius). They should be included eventually, when funding is available. She favored the project and a big vision for it.

Councilor Bragdon asked if the Commuter Rail included bus and/or other connections to complement the service.

Mr. Roberts said yes. After Metro completed the travel demand forecasting for the networks, some of the buses were diverted to serve some of the commuter rail stations. The Commuter Rail project would also link to the Beaverton Transit Center. The project would achieve regional connectivity effectively. A person would be able to travel from any point on the commuter rail system to any point on the light rail system with just one transfer.

Chair Monroe said except the airport, which would require two transfers.

Mr. Cotugno and Mr. Roberts said yes.

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

5.  UPDATE – STATUS OF THE STATE MTIP/STIP PROCESS

Mr. Cotugno said the department was waiting to get started with the next round of the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) allocation process. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) had to sort through some of its budget issues to determine how they would affect their ability to fund future projects in the MTIP process. Their goal was to locate $141 million of cuts in their biennium budget to fully fund bridge and pavement preservation and maintenance of the existing system. The Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) decided to cut $45 million elsewhere in their budget to provide funding toward that goal. But they did not reach it. Therefore, conditions will continue to slip. The modernization program was stripped as far as possible to basically the 2 cents of gas tax dedicated to modernization and some earmarked federal discretionary projects. They eliminated $20 million from their modernization program budget by cutting engineering and right-of-way acquisition. Therefore,

from the ODOT modernization program Metro would receive less than the $15 million/per 2-year period for an update to the STIP (State Transportation Improvement Program). The only modernization projects that would be fundable on the ODOT highway system would be the next phase of the Sunset project from Highway 217 to Murray Boulevard. A land use order from Washington County mandated that it be built by 2005. There will not be much of a selection process. They will be able to retain the projects they committed to which were the Sunset and the current phase of I-5 and Highway 217, and the Sunnyside project. Those were probably the only modernization projects funded in the region.

Mr. Cotugno mentioned a second area and said for the past 15 years ODOT maintained a separate Immediate Opportunity fund that provided them with capacity to do up to $500,000 grants for road improvements associated with new job development and industry. The Portland region received some of those grants. It was a $10 million per biennium program. The ODOT reduced it to $2 million and focused it almost exclusively on rural areas where the job connection was much more critical than in the metro region. Therefore, Metro’s access to that program would be eliminated.

Mr. Cotugno mentioned a third area and said the Transportation Growth Management program that provided planning grants to local governments and Metro for various kinds of transportation and growth management related activities (the green streets grant, etc.) Metro could expect 20 percent cutback in the level of that funding.

Mr. Cotugno mentioned a fourth area and said Transportation Enhancement Funds that were exclusively dedicated to an odd collection of projects (bicycle and pedestrian improvements, historical preservation related transportation projects, wetlands mitigation, scenic easements, etc.) were not available for transit or road related improvements. Instead, they were to fund the accessories for those improvements. Metro could expect to receive half of the traditional $2.5 million allocation to Metro that had been added to the agency’s pool of STIP and CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation Air Quality) funds.

Mr. Cotugno mentioned a fifth area and said Metro’s STIP, CMAQ and planning funds were protected. Federal legislation required an earmark for metropolitan areas of over 1 million population. Metro will retain its $16 million STIP yearly allocation, its $8 million CMAQ funds and its traditional planning financing. The ODOT did not have the authority to eliminate that funding.

Mr. Cotugno mentioned a sixth area and said ODOT considered but chose not to cut the $10 million per biennium set aside for elderly and disabled capital improvements (basically buses for elderly and disabled people). It was the first allocation of funding by ODOT for transit purposes in the past 15 years. In the past, the agency used general funds for transit projects (light rail).

Mr. Cotugno said the funding issues were beginning to settle. The department planned to have timelines for the STIP process in Fall 2000.

Chair Monroe said Mr. Cotugno outlined ODOT’s recommendation to the Governor for the Governor’s budget, which would begin the whole legislative process for 2001.

Councilor Bragdon cited expansion programs and asked if the Columbia Boulevard/I-205 improvement was now no longer on the department’s priority list.

Mr. Cotugno said yes. It had not been put on the list.

Councilor Bragdon asked about its priority if the money was available at the state level.

Mr. Cotugno said if the money was available it would be the department’s priority. However, it was not the type of project that the department typically allocated its STIP toward because of its $35 million to $45 million price tag.

Councilor Bragdon asked if Metro’s MTIP process would be affected.

Mr. Cotugno said they waited until ODOT’s budget process had settled. Now they planned to reactivate the MTIP process.

COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

Councilor McLain asked for Chair Monroe to review for her how the committee handled the first two items on the agenda.

Chair Monroe provided a review.

Councilor McLain said a Hillsboro Chamber of Commerce subcommittee that included 20 people, with representatives from Portland General Electric, realtors, developer and business people. They wanted to know what the next step would be. They told her Level Service F was not acceptable as a goal, but understandable as part of a fiscally constrained package. They understood the issues but wanted leadership that could located funding to achieve a transportation system that would be better than the minimum.

Mr. Cotugno said the department proposed in the RTP a standard that said the region would accept Level Service F for an hour in the morning and the evening for targeted areas where a multi-modal system was available to provide alternatives. Therefore, in the mixed-use centers and on the major freeways that accessed the downtown Portland mixed-use center, the region will accept a Level Service F. However, if it grows longer than that it would no longer be acceptable. The department arrived at that conclusion based on what was necessary to achieve a Level Service E (maintaining a speed of 35-45 miles per hour for the hour). That would require building a much larger freeway than what was planned (on the Sunset Highway, etc.) It would require adding at least one additional lane in each direction that would eliminate transit ridership in the corridor, and be very expensive and disruptive. They have had trouble building the $100 million Sunset Highway improvements that where still under construction, which were very expensive. The size and impact of the ramps in the Sylvan area is also huge. The amount of right of way necessary to achieve that higher level of service cannot be tolerated in many areas, by neighborhoods and/or businesses. The levels of service standards were designed to prevent congestion during the rest of the day, which was more important than the rush hours. In areas with alternative modes of travel, congestion during the peak hours was not as critical an issue on commerce and transit. There are alternatives. The Level Service F designation was a critical issue in other areas without alternatives (outer I-5, etc.), and therefore Level Service E was established in those areas, instead.

Councilor McLain said the subcommittee also wanted to know how the money the region had was being used and how the choices were being made. She reviewed the JPACT process and choices among modes but they still had questions. One woman questioned Metro’s choices and allocating money toward transit. She said they told her transit (light rail) did not help them. They were not using light rail to its fullest extent and considering a solution.

Councilor McLain said the group also said that Metro should not criticize Washington County for trying to break off on its own or creating its own solution if Metro cannot create a solution. She told the group it would require involvement from all the jurisdictions to fill the 8-year void in transportation funding. They wanted to know where the leadership and solutions were. She asked if by solution they meant a tax to raise funding. She asked if the group would be willing to sell a tax to its citizens. She explained to the group support would have to come from the ground

up, not the top down. Washington County would not want Metro to force a regional tax on the citizens to fix the roads. She also mentioned that the Governor had asked governments to delay any regional transportation fixes and that Metro honored that request. The group wanted to be a good partner, step up to he plate and work toward identifying a solution, not sit around inactive. She told them that simply adopting the RTP would not eliminate any of those problems.

Chair Monroe added that not passing RTP did not help solve any of the problems, either.

Councilor Bragdon asked her to elaborate on the funding issue. Washington and Multnomah County had there own gas taxes.

Councilor McLain mentioned a sore spot. Washington County was told at the JPACT table they needed to compromise. They did not like waiting in line behind Clackamas County. They cited the transportation system improvements/additions that Washington County still needed.

Councilor Bragdon said they asked that Metro postpone any consideration of requesting a regional gas tax. They wanted leadership yet were asking Metro to stop searching for funding solutions.

Councilor McLain said the councilors would hear a mixed message in Washington County. Washington County may have wanted to put together an MSTIP-7 before the any regional gas tax. Both probably would not be approved.

ADJOURN

There being no further committee business, Chair Monroe adjourned the meeting at 2:43 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Andy Flinn

Council Assistant

Attachments to the Record

Metro Transportation Planning Committee meeting of July 18, 2000