MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, September 19, 2000

Council Chamber

Members Present:  Rod Monroe (Chair) and Susan McLain

Members Absent:  

Also Present:    Ed Washington    

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 AUGUST 8, 2000 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

2.  RESOLUTION NO. 00-2980A, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO INCLUDE SECTION 5309 FUNDS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW MILWAUKIE TRANSIT CENTER.

Mike Hoglund, Transportation Planning Manager, said Tri-Met and the city of Milwaukie requested the resolution to amend the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) to create a $5 million pool to construct the transit center beginning in either late 2000 or early 2001. The MTIP had to be amended so the funds could be obligated. After the allocation for the PSU (Portland State University) Transit Center, approximately $1.5 million remained. Tri-Met requested permission to use that funding to construct the Milwaukie Transit Center. The FTA (Federal Transit Administration) approved the use of those funds. An additional appropriation this year (Fiscal Year (FY) 2000) from Congress ($650,000) boosted funding currently available for the transit center to $2.15 million. They also anticipated receiving another $1.85 million in FY 2001 for the full costs of the transit center, plus a 20 percent match ($1 million) from Tri-Met. The resolution would place all the funding in the appropriate categories and amend the MTIP. Then the money could be obligated to Tri-Met who could start the project. He mentioned issues regarding the location of the transit center that had developed. He introduced Phil Sellinger from Tri-Met who was present to talk about the project and its location.

Phil Sellinger, Tri-Met – Project Planning Manager, said the current transit center in Milwaukie was presently an on-street facility spread across a couple streets. Accordingly, it did not have full amenities that Tri-Met normally preferred to provide at transit centers. The riders of Tri-Met’s service are required to cross streets to make their connections. Tri-Met was actually looking for an off-street transit center facility for 20 years, ever since they had a transit center in downtown Milwaukie. They identified the proposed site at an abandoned Safeway store in downtown Milwaukie during the south-north study a few years ago. It was at that time and still was now, according to Tri-Met and Milwaukie, considered the most viable site. The site was reflected and compatible with the city’s downtown plan, which was moving through the adoption process.

Mr. Sellinger said the city of Milwaukie fully supported the site. The transit center would be primarily off-street with 14 bus bays and full amenities (including shelter, lighting, telephones, full customer information, etc., and possibly passenger restrooms). It would occupy approximately a

little less than 3/4 of the existing Safeway site. The rest of the site would be left with Milwaukie for conversion to a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) adjacent to the transit center.

Mr. Sellinger said the transit center would be compatible with bus operations and future rail scenarios, both commuter and light rail. Encouraged somewhat by AORTA (Association of Oregon Rail and Transit Advocates) and Jim Howell, one of the group’s representatives, Tri-Met examined alternative sites during the south-north study. There were other sites that could work, but not as well as the Safeway site. Tri-Met believed it matched up best with almost any of the future bus operating scenarios in the corridor and alternatives currently being considered in the south-north transportation alternatives study. Both Milwaukie and Tri-met believed the facility was overdue, in terms of need. Milwaukie considered it a catalyst project for its downtown plan.

Chair Monroe said it might be appropriate to ask questions regarding the analysis of the alternative sites to explain why Milwaukie and Tri-Met considered the Safeway location superior.

Mr. Sellinger referred to the map in the committee meeting packet. He said it was a conceptual site plan of the transit center. He was not sure it helped to describe the alternative sites. They analyzed a site that would use the backside of Milwaukie Junior High School alongside the Portland and Western rail line and the Milwaukie lumberyard (also considered during the south-north study) south of the proposed Safeway. Recently, they considered a site opposite the lumberyard east of the tracks. It appeared to be viable but not as well connected to the bus network in the Milwaukie area. The sites, in terms of operating costs, were fairly similar. The Safeway site was slightly superior, but not enough to be significant.

Mr. Sellinger said they also analyzed ways to connect a future commuter rail alignment between Milwaukie, Lake Oswego and Beaverton. They also talked to Milwaukie regarding the possibility of extending a single track down 21^st Street to connect alongside or across the street from the proposed Safeway site. A site at the lumberyard, junior high school or east of the lumberyard would be directly on the rail line and would not require any further modifications or street disruptions. A single track down 21^st Street, connected alongside or across the street from the proposed Safeway site, would not be unlike what was proposed for Beaverton with their commuter rail alignment into the Beaverton Transit Center (BTC) on Lombard Street.

Mr. Sellinger said the major concerns of Milwaukie and its citizens, that the alternative sites alongside the existing freight rail alignment were closer to neighborhoods and schools, were similar to what they had heard during the south-north project. Tri-Met and Milwaukie believed the Safeway site, was fully compatible with the land use plan in Milwaukie’s downtown plan.

Chair Monroe asked if the major arguments for the selection of the Safeway site were the following: 1) it was part of Milwaukie’s downtown plan, and supported by the city and Clackamas County and, 2) the city, and citizen and neighborhood groups objected to the alternative sites located closer to the rails because they would be too close to the neighborhoods and schools.

Mr. Sellinger said that was Tri-Met’s interpretation of at least the city’s opinion during the north-south study.

Chair Monroe heard some of the discussions regarding the north-south study. It was enjoyable.

Mr. Sellinger said Tri-Met also met with the Milwaukie Library Board located directly across from the proposed Safeway site. The board indicated Tri-Met addressed their concerns satisfactorily.

Chair Monroe asked if the region was ever able to get a light rail connection from the Milwaukie Transit Center north to Portland, what site would work the best for that function.

Mr. Sellinger said the proposed site emerged from the south-north rail study. Therefore, it was the preferred site in terms of getting light rail to the location. Tri-Met also thought there were alternative alignments between Milwaukie and Portland that would also work. Along 21^st or on Main Street headed north were two examples. An alignment alongside the existing freight railway should not be considered the obvious or only way to connect light rail to downtown Milwaukie.

Councilor McLain asked about the timeline for building the station.

Mr. Sellinger said Tri-Met submitted the environmental assessment to the FTA three months ago and expected approval or turnaround in October 2000. They identified an engineering consultant ready to proceed once Tri-Met receives FTA approval. They could begin construction in Spring 2001 if the funding was complete. Tri-Met could have the project constructed by Fall 2001.

Councilor McLain asked when the South Corridor Transportation Alternatives Study would be completed.

Mr. Hoglund said the first phase would be completed in 2001. An additional alternatives analysis would follow. There was a definitive alignment recommendation that was at least 2-3 years out.

PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION NO. 00-2980A

Jim Howell, 3325 N.E. 45^th Ave., Portland, OR 97213, represented AORTA. He referred to written testimony that AORTA presented to JPACT last week. (A copy of written testimony from AORTA can be found in the permanent record of this meeting.)

Mr. Howell said representatives from Milwaukie expressed their position on the issue at the JPACT (Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation) meeting. Since he did not see them present at today’s Transportation Committee meeting he wanted to cover a few things they said during that meeting. He respectfully disagreed with most of the city’s comments. They said the Safeway location was not compatible with all five alternatives studied in the South Corridor alignment. The AORTA believed it was not compatible with commuter rail or interregional rail, which was part of the study. The JPACT requested that they study interregional rail. To operate regional rail into the Safeway site would involve running a spur track 7 blocks down 21^st Avenue to the transit center. This, alone, would cost considerably more than the transit center to construct. It would have to be FRA (Federal Railroad Administration) approved track because it was a spur off a freight rail line. The AORTA also considered it politically unfeasible based upon the position of most people in Milwaukie. The issue was never raised in any of the meeting discussions with the people of Milwaukie as part of their downtown plan. The 21^st Avenue idea was not mentioned. It was not forthright to say it was a reasonable concept to be approved.

Mr. Howell said Milwaukie also told JPACT that the public supported building a transit center on the Safeway site. But no one thought about how it would connect to the rail system. Rail was not part of the issue. It was just a way to move the transit center from its on-street location to another location. The Safeway site was selected in conjunction with the south-north light rail extension to Clackamas Town Center. There was a Milwaukie Loop that had zero likelihood of being built. However, the likelihood of light rail to Milwaukie was quite feasible. Therefore, the most logical place for light rail to reach Milwaukie was along the Portland Western right-of-way, in fact, on the right-of-way. By the time the West Side Commuter Rail began construction the track in question would be in public ownership. It was a logical alignment for a future light rail line through Milwaukie. It was the only line that would not have an adverse affect on their downtown plan. Tri-Met could have purchased it several years ago for $10 million but declined.

Mr. Howell said he never saw any documentation that indicated the other sites were considered. AORTA knew of at least three other sites. The Tri-Met Planning Department considered one site, between 21st Avenue and Lake Road, 20 years ago. He examined it himself when he worked for

Tri-Met. At that time cost prevented the project from being created. Tri-Met did not want to spend the money for an off-street site. However, that site was not considered as an alternative to the Safeway site. Milwaukie’s downtown plan was a parking lot so it was not an unreasonable site for a transit center. He did not think that site was considered.

Mr. Howell mentioned the lumberyard site between Monroe and Washington. The main objection was the close proximity to a high school. The committee needed to consider that they were talking about a transit center not a porno shop. The close proximity to a high school would be an advantage, not a disadvantage. He questioned the attitude that people who use transit are so undesirable. It is not the kind of thing you ask the FTA to provide funding support for.

Mr. Howell mentioned the third site, a junior high site. The objection to this site was that it was open space and the high school was a historic facility. Therefore, Tri-Met would probably not be able to get approval to put the transit center behind it. Ironically, in AORTA’s proposal both the junior high school and the open space were preserved. Making it a transit center would give them an excellent opportunity to preserve the entire site. Milwaukie had a bond measure on the ballot in November 2000 to raise money to buy that site from the North Clackamas School District. If they did not raise enough money, the site could be sold to a developer who might tear down the school and fill in the open space. It was surplus property the school wanted to sell.

Mr. Howell said one explanation that had not been stated yet could be the primary motivation for Milwaukie to want the transit center at the Safeway site was an over $7,000 a month option for sale of the property. The city had been paying it since defeat of the south-north light rail ballot initiative to preserve their interest in the site. The city wanted to stop making those payments. It was a valid motivation to unload the site, but not a valid reason to build the transit center there. The AORTA proposal said the site would be great for a TOD because it Milwaukie’s downtown plan and would be only 3-4 blocks from the transit center. Milwaukie’s planning consultant told him any of the sites Mr. Howell mentioned fit the downtown plan.

Mr. Howell said an off-street transit center in Milwaukie has been overdue. People had been talking about the issue for the past 20 years, ever since Tri-Met built the on-street transit center. Location of the Milwaukie Transit Center should be delayed until the preferred alternative (commuter rail, regional rail, etc.) from the South Corridor study had been identified. Otherwise, they were putting a project before planning. AORTA was concerned about the process. Therefore, they asked that the Transportation Committee recommend to the Metro Council to remand the issue back to JPACT for a very modest amendment.

Ken McFarling, 7417 SE 20^th Ave., Portland, OR 97202 also represented AORTA. He endorsed Mr. Howell’s arguments. In supporting the Safeway site, Mr. Sellinger referred to the Beaverton Transit Center (BTC) and the proposal to build a track to connect it to the Beaverton-Wilsonville commuter rail line. Mr. Sellinger also opposed locating the BTC near the business district and the routes of some buses that enter Milwaukie. There were 3 routes along McLoughlin Boulevard, 4 along Harrison Street and the north edge of the high school property. Therefore, it would be a shorter distance for them to travel to the high school site than to the Safeway property. The BTC, which Mr. Sellinger liked, was built before the light railway was planned, off-line for every bus that comes into the facility. All buses diverted to the north from Canyon or Farmington roads to enter the BTC. They had to travel the loop, approximately 1/2 mile, to the center and exit. The Safeway site is also further from the business district. It was at least as far as from the high school site and was no farther from the business district than the present BTC was from the Beaverton business district. That refuted those two arguments from Mr. Sellinger.

Chair Monroe said he also talked by telephone with Mr. Polani regarding the topic.

Mr. Howell referred to the AORTA letter. He mentioned that if commuter rail ever extended through it could not easily serve a transit center located at the Safeway site because the trains

would be required to back up out of downtown to move forward. The 21^st Avenue connection would only work if it could be built, politically and fiscally, as a dead end connection in Milwaukie.

Chair Monroe said, based on the feasibility of rail and bus service in the Milwaukie area, the least likely option was commuter rail to the north. There was significant viability for the option of commuter rail connection to Lake Oswego across the bridge or light rail to the north, as well as many other options. Commuter rail between Milwaukie and Portland, because of the current use of the tracks and right-of-way for freight and other needs, was much less likely an option.

Mr. Howell agreed, until the high-speed rail corridor could be developed to Eugene. At that time, the rail would probably be all double tracked and Metro will see the option for true commuter rail as peak hour, prime direction, large trains coming as far south as Woodburn and Salem, and as far west as McMinnville. They would both come into Milwaukie and route downtown. However, that would be after the track was updated for high-speed rail. Therefore, he did not see that as the same thing as a frequent rail service between Milwaukie and Beaverton.

Mr. McFarling agreed that extension of commuter rail into downtown Portland would be more difficult to achieve. However, it should not be ruled out. Currently, San Francisco approved plans to extend the Cal-Tran route, between Portland and Townsend streets, about ¾ of a mile from downtown, and connect to San Jose and further south. It was to be extended underground into Mission Street just one block away from Market Street, a principal thoroughfare in San Francisco.

Councilor McLain asked if the Clackamas School District owned the junior high school, and whether the committee agreed that neither Tri-Met’s nor Mr. Howell’s plan harmed, in any way, the Milwaukie downtown plan.

Mr. Hoglund said he was at JPACT meeting and the Mayor of Milwaukie testified that 70 percent of their residents approved of the Safeway site proposed by Tri-Met.

Councilor McLain asked Mr. Howell how the map scoped the junior high location.

Mr. Howell said it did not meet the specifics because they showed the transit center on the Safeway site. He said George Crandal, Milwaukie’s consultant, said that a TOD at the Safeway site and a transit center behind the junior high school would not conflict, in any way, with the concepts and objectives of the downtown plan.

Mr. Sellinger said Tri-Met met numerous times with Milwaukie and their consultants and had a slightly different understanding. The Safeway site could be used for other purposes but the transit center was most compatible with the downtown plan located at the Safeway site. The city was interested in getting the transit center into the central business district of the downtown plan. The junior high school site, located too close to residential areas, would not satisfy that goal.

Councilor McLain asked if it was a difference of just 2-3 blocks.

Mr. Sellinger said yes.

Chair Monroe hoped to see representatives from Milwaukie and Clackamas County. Today they could not attend. He asked that they be present when the issue goes to the full Metro Council.

Mr. Hoglund said yes, they would attend the Council meeting on September 28, 2000.

Chair Monroe recommended the Transportation Committee move the issue forward without a recommendation to the full Council. He wanted to let the Council hear from the AORTA representatives and other citizens who wanted to testify; and question the mayor of Milwaukie, and the city and county officials who strongly recommended the Safeway site.

Councilor McLain approved but she asked for an opportunity to provide a few comments.

Chair Monroe agreed.

Councilor McLain said she was familiar with the Safeway site. Her father was raised near the site and graduated from high school there. She also planned to brief the mayor of Milwaukie and the other officials. First, regarding the transportation-land use connection, the school districts all over the region were screaming for more land for schools. The facility may not be needed in the present Clackamas configuration of needs for school districts. However, she questioned selling any school property that could be used in the next 20 to 50 years. There were always community schools, senior centers, day care and elements of elementary or high schools that could be assembled into real community facility. The school district should be asked exactly what there plans are and how sure they are of their future with respect to the site. She asked Chair Monroe to bring these and other important issues before the full Council.

Councilor McLain said second, the Safeway site size may work now. However, she wanted to know what the future vision for the site was, because there would be other needs (whether a light rail or Commuter Rail connection, or a greater volume, etc.). She asked how the site fit with the future needs of the next 5 to 20 years. She knew Tri-Met scoped the site/project. However, they never mentioned that until today, but it needed to be in part of their presentation, because the Safeway site was fairly small. She cited the master plan and the proximity to the business area. She said it was closer to residential than business, which was fine. However, Tri-Met testified that Milwaukie wanted the transit center near their business section, which was farther away than the housing they had located on the map. She asked what Milwaukie and Clackamas County really wanted and what they were visualizing there.

Councilor McLain also noted that Metro promised to do something, as quickly as possible, to relieve traffic congestion in the South Corridor, following the light rail bond measure failure. She supported Tri-Met’s effort to get something (new Milwaukie Transit Center) constructed quickly. However, if it was a short-term, quick fix with long-term consequences, she agreed with Mr. Howell’s comments. It sounded like Milwaukie desperately needed the transit center. But it had to be balanced with the needs of the future and consideration for how the other transportation connections would be achieved. She did not believe the Tri-Met presentation was very persuasive and that they considered all the issues adequately. They had to address the connection with the alternatives analysis study mentioned in the AORTA letter. She wanted to help Tri-Met do the right thing, get something constructed as a short-term solution for long-term issues. However, the timing and scope had to be right. There needed to be more talk about these issues and enlightenment. She planned to read the minutes from the JPACT meeting. However, she suggested the Metro Transportation Department and Tri-Met be more prepared for the Council meeting presentation. She saw no solution at today’s committee meeting. They needed to see each other’s side more clearly so the issues can be addressed and resolved.

Mr. Sellinger said they would be prepared to address the Council. Tri-Met did examine a 2000-2020 time horizon for sizing the Milwaukie Transit Center for both bus and other mode options.

Councilor McLain said the location of the site is somewhat strange. The flow was pretty practical. However, there were other elements that, depending on what Milwaukie does with downtown and the school site, could make the transit center obsolete, which was her concern. The size and location faced so many unknowns for what could be built around it. The site had to be flexible enough to meet a variety of future land use scenarios.

Mr. Sellinger said it was incorporated with the downtown plan, in part, to address multiple uses.

Councilor McLain appreciated that but said the plan was a draft and still looked general. Not incorporating the school site area was ridiculous. It was so close. It was two blocks away. To not know what would be on that site is a problem in terms of land use.

Mr. Sellinger said they presumed they might have preferred bus service on McLoughlin Boulevard. Therefore, proximity to that street was a consideration that favored the Safeway site.

Chair Monroe said the feeling in Clackamas County is that they have been passed over for transportation improvements (light rail, etc.) long enough, despite the fact that some of it was their own fault. Now, there is an opportunity to do something to improve transit in Clackamas County that the county, Milwaukie and the community support. Therefore, from a political standpoint, Metro finally will get to give that area a win, which was important. If Metro planned to succeed and continue, the agency had to be very cautious about overturning the decisions of its local partners. He was not saying Metro should never do that. But Metro should be careful.

Councilor McLain said she would not turn away the wisdom of JPACT, Clackamas County, Milwaukie, Metro planners, Tri-Met or anyone else. However, if she planned to vote for it she wanted findings in the record that made it easier for her to vote for it. She did not feel comfortable with the presentation today. Mr. Howell and Mr. McFarling provided some points that needed to be answered pragmatically. She wanted to do something for Clackamas County to improve transportation. If Tri-Met did not do something in the short term it would loose respect and trust in that area of the region. The product of the alternatives analysis needed to be productive, far reaching and a good, overall, long-term solution. So she is supportive. But she wanted to know how flexible and comprehensive the Safeway site and plan would be. A very large piece of property 2 short blocks away was not part of the downtown plan. It did not make sense.

Chair Monroe just wanted to talk to the officials in that area of the region about the issue.

Mr. Hoglund said he would arrange for city of Milwaukie and Clackamas County officials, the Mayor of Milwaukie and possibly Clackamas County Commissioner Michael Jordan to attend the Metro Council meeting, participate in discussions and answer questions.

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

3.  COMMENTS ON DRAFT FEDERAL RULES FOR METROPOLITAN PLANNING, NEPA AND INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

Mr. Hoglund said the Metro Transportation Department was seeking the Transportation Committee’s advice and general approval. The TEA-21 (Transportation Efficiency Act of the 21^st Century) was passed approximately 1½ to 2 years ago. Every time a new federal transportation act was passed several things happened. Often there were new planning rules and requirements. He described them in detail at JPACT. His general impression was that they were mildly interested. However, the department tried to reduce a lot of it to the main policy issues they considered important or still pretty arcane.

Mr. Hoglund said there was a notice of proposed rulemaking. Therefore, they were basically draft rules. Then, there was a docket established, that closed September 22, 2000. He was not sure if the department planned a full Council review. He said he might need help to submit the

comments to the docket. They were all fairly reasonable. There were 3 sets of regulations on statewide metropolitan planning distributed. This was the main issue the department was concerned about. There was also an attempt to establish a better link between NEPA (National Environmental Protection Act) Environmental Impact Statement type activities and planning activities. Therefore, there were some proposed revisions to the NEPA rules. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) rules (system management and efficiency steps that could be used with the transportation system to make it function more effectively without building more infrastructure) were also proposed. They included information systems, operations centers, etc.

Mr. Hoglund said the department spent a lot of time reviewing the information and discussing the issue at TPAC (Transportation Policy Advisory Committee), in particular. One issue that developed was whether Metro was better off with regulations and a menu of options to follow or whether the agency was better off with general statements and more local control of how to handle certain issues. They discussed this related to issues of environmental justice and streamlining. The conclusion was that in either event case law would probably determine some of the concerns, particularly related to the Environmental Impact Statements and whether or not Metro addressed environmental justice concerns adequately. They took an in between approach. For the most part, the department planned to try to suggest limiting the amount of specificity they had in the rules to provide more guidance outside the rules regarding how Metro might approach handling these certain issues.

Mr. Hoglund referred to the information contained in the committee meeting packet. (A copy of the Transportation Planning Committee meeting packet can be found in the permanent record of this meeting.) He summed up the comments and said the overall message was what was in place during the last 6 years generally worked. The rules should be tweaked but no great changes. They should not throw a lot out or add too many specifics on top of what was there.

Chair Monroe asked if the committee could grant the department approval to proceed with the TPAC recommendations to deal with the regulations or if it needed to be heard by the full Council.

Mr. Hoglund said no. The Transportation Department planned to submit a letter to the docket and wanted it signed as a joint position by the Metro Council and JPACT. However, the comments could come from JPACT and Councilor Kvistad or the Committee could sign the letter.

Chair Monroe said either way was fine.

Mr. Hoglund was concerned that the full Council had not seen the material.

Chair Monroe suggested Mr. Hoglund brief Presiding Officer Bragdon about the intent and acquire his approval. The Presiding Officer might want to amend the Council agenda and hear a presentation on Thursday before the full Council. Either way, Chair Monroe agreed to sign the letter, if necessary. The approach Mr. Hoglund outlined, in terms of the TPAC recommendations, made sense. However, Metro did not want to pass up the opportunity to provide input.

Mr. Hoglund said it was also a JPACT recommendation that passed unanimously.

Councilor McLain said he provided a good presentation and agreed 100 percent. The only issue she had was with the ITS portion. She assumed they were the signs that alerted drivers of accidents ahead. She did not know how much the signs cost but wanted to know if they were proven cost effective. She did not like to spend money on ITS and did not believe Metro should encourage such technology given the region’s already limited funding sources for transportation.

Mr. Hoglund said ITS was originally IVHS (Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems). Some called it “Intravenous Highway Spending” for all the engineers who needed work after they finished building the highway system. The road signs were just one small piece of ITS. He was not sure, either, how beneficial they were. There was a regional committee that Metro was involved with

that talked about the technology. They determined the signalization optimization projects for Gresham and Multnomah counties, and ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation) had also begun using some of the signs. His department could arrange for that group to provide a quick presentation to JPACT and also the Transportation Committee regarding ITS strategies in the Portland area, and the committee could ask questions about effectiveness and other issues.

4.  INFORMATIONAL UPDATE – RTP CONFORMITY APPROACH AND SCHEDULE

Mr. Hoglund said the air quality conformity analysis for the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) update had begun. He mentioned key dates, including September 29, 2000, when the Transportation Department planned to complete the modeling and analysis on the air quality conformity determination. During the first couple of years, they modeled 2020 first. It showed the RTP would meet the clean air act requirement for 2020. The department had to measure the interim years. But the results looked good.

Mr. Hoglund said the public outreach process would begin on October 6, 2000 and conclude on November 7, 2000 with a public hearing before the Transportation Committee. The department did not plan to request a special evening hearing. This type of hearing was typically pretty low key. The JPACT planned to make a recommendation on the conformity determination on November 9, 2000. Then, the full Metro Council would consider the issue on November 16, 2000. Following that, the issue was still subject to approval and recognition from the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency in December 2000.

COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

ADJOURN

There being no further committee business, Chair Monroe adjourned the meeting at 2:41 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Andy Flinn

Council Assistant

Attachments to the Record

Metro Transportation Planning Committee meeting of September 19, 2000