MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, November 7, 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 OCTOBER 17, 2000 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

2.  RESOLUTION NO. 00-2999, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADOPTING THE PORTLAND AREA AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DETERMINATION FOR THE 2000 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN (RTP).

Mike Hoglund, Metro Transportation Planning Manager, referred to the resolution, staff report and associated documentation materials in the meeting packet. It was the conformity determination on the financially constrained component of the RTP. The Metro Transportation Department had a preferred, strategic (now called priority) and a financially constrained option. The federal government required that Metro test the financially constrained option for air quality conformity, based on what the department could reasonably assume for new revenue sources during the next 20 years. Therefore, it did not allow the department to account for any potential, out of the ordinary, increases in certain fees, taxes, toll roads, congestion pricing or any of the things that might be implemented during the next 20 years. They were not included in the revenue sources. Therefore, it was a fairly conservative, constrained plan. The transit component would increase 1.5 percent. It included a per-year or 20 years. It also included in the large highway component what was proposed for the bond list plus a few other smaller projects (a phase of the Sunrise Corridor; finishing Highway 26 to Highway 217 to Murray, but not beyond). It was a fairly constrained amount of projects.

Mr. Hoglund said the conformity determination brought Metro up to date in relation to some actions performed by the department during the past 3-4 years. They completed the interim conformity determinations for particular projects (Washington County Commuter Rail, Interstate MAX and Airport MAX). Each time, they used a methodology approved by DEQ (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality) and TPAC (Transportation Policy Advisory Committee). The one included in the meeting packet, followed the rule completely and brought Metro up to speed. Therefore, the department, federal government and DEQ would all be happy.

Mr. Hoglund described the report, 2000 Regional Transportation Plan, Air Quality Conformity Determination, October 6, 2000, Public Review Draft, contained in the meeting packet and the results of the conformity determination on pages 21 and 22. The resolution and staff report acknowledged regional conformity and that Metro planned to finalize the process. Once it was adopted regionally by JPACT (Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation) and the Metro Council, the department planned to present it to the Federal Highway Administration and the

Environmental Protection Agency for their final determination that it conformed. That step could be completed by mid-December 2000. Then, the region would have a federally approved RTP.

Andy Cotugno, Metro Planning Director, said when the region adopted the RTP in August 2000, there were a few conditions that still had to be met. Air quality conformity was one of the conditions. Once completed, it could be submitted to the federal government for approval. The department already submitted it, with all the various findings, to the state LCDC (Land Conservation and Development Commission) for approval. It was not an LCDC requirement. It was a federal requirement. Now completed, it would be before the region’s two major approval bodies: state and federal.

Mr. Hoglund referred to his handout Summary of 2000 RTP AWD Emissions for Conformity, October 5, 2000. (A copy of this document can be found in the permanent record of this meeting.) The region was under-budget for all the years, which was a piece of information requested by TPAC during the adoption stage. It reflected starting from a relatively small base he described in the financially constrained option. They added quite a bit of highway capacity, a lot of transit capital and operations. Therefore, in terms of air quality, the system worked fairly well.

Chair Monroe asked if it was safe to conclude that regardless of which option Metro could afford to fund (the financially constrained option or strategic option) the region would be under-budget.

Mr. Hoglund said yes, due, for the most part, to advancements in automotive technology.

Chair Monroe asked if the strategic level option contained more roads and highways, but also included a lot more transit, compared to the financially constrained option.

Mr. Hoglund said transit would be boosted from 1.5 percent to 3.8 percent growth per year.

Mr. Cotugno said the federal government required that any project, whether funded with state, federal or local money, had to conform with a fiscally constrained plan. Therefore, if Metro added anything beyond the fiscally constrained model, the department would have to demonstrate that with the additional project(s) it still conformed. He said the whole RTP package conformed. However, if the Council added new individual pieces, the department would have to demonstrate that the resulting plan conformed.

PUBLIC HEARING

No one came forward to provide public input.

Chair Monroe assigned himself to carry the resolution to the Council.

3.  RESOLUTION NO. 00-3001, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING THE FY 2000-03 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (MTIP) TO INCLUDE $3,443,122 OF CONGESTION MITIGATION AIR QUALITY (CMAQ) FUNDS FOR HIGH-SPEED RAIL TRACK IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PORTLAND AREA.  

Mr. Hoglund said the resolution was Oregon’s annual contribution of CMAQ funds to the region. Upon re-authorization of the CMAQ program, the state withheld a certain amount for the past 5-6 years at the discretion of Governor Kitzhaber and the OTC (Oregon Transportation Commission)

with the understanding that under federal rules it had to be spent in a non-attainment area and have an emissions benefit. Generally, what they had done for the past few years was allocate the funding to high-speed rail improvements. Last year, they bought 2 new engines to add another train between Portland and Eugene with funding secured from the Oregon Legislature to operate it. Money from the resolution would fund part of a larger project of track improvements between Portland and Eugene. It was a key element of track improvements through the central east side (Albina Yard to the Brooklyn Yard). It would double-track that entire line. He described the staff report included in the meeting packet. The resolution would amend the MTIP to program the funds in the region and get the project started.

Chair Monroe said it would shorten the travel time from Portland to Eugene, and for trains that traveled through the Portland region, and up and down the West Coast.

Chair Monroe assigned himself to carry the resolution to the Council.

Councilor Bragdon mentioned the reference of Milwaukie Avenue in the staff report. He clarified it should be the city of Milwaukie, city limits of Milwaukie or Tacoma Street, but not Milwaukie Avenue. He asked Mr. Hoglund to check that reference

Chair Monroe did not think the rail line crossed Milwaukie Avenue.

Mr. Hoglund said it would be tough to achieve 70 miles per hour in that area and slow down.

4.  RESOLUTION NO. 00-3002, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA) WITH WASHINGTON COUNTY FOR THE WILSONVILLE/BEAVERTON TRANSIT CORRIDOR STUDY, CONTRACT NO. 921738.

Richard Brandman, Metro Transportation Planning Director, said Metro currently had an IGA with Washington County to facilitate the flow of federal funds to implement the Commuter Rail project. Last year, at the federal appropriations process, Washington County was awarded $500,000 of Section 5309 funds to advance the preliminary engineering on the project. Due to bureaucratic red tape, the funds have not been sent to Washington County. The region was near the end of the air quality conformity process, which would enable Metro to deliver those funds to Washington County. He referred to the staff report in the meeting packet. Hopefully, Metro would soon see a similar resolution. The federal government recently awarded Washington County $1 million during the last appropriations process. Hopefully, it would not require another year for Washington County to receive those funds.

Councilor McLain asked why the funding passed through Metro. Sometimes Washington County obtained their own funding for certain projects (housing, etc.) She asked what was unusual about this issue/resolution and if the federal government or Metro caused the delay.

Mr. Cotugno said the federal government was responsible for the delay. A jurisdiction had to qualify to be a federal applicant. For example, all highway funds passed through ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation). Federal transit funds passed through either Metro or Tri-Met, who were both certified to meet the federal application requirements. Washington County could, too. However, it required a lot of work. Therefore, Metro served as the applicant. Tri-Met could have also. However, Metro started the EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) process, which was almost finished. Therefore, it was easier to continue that relationship.

Councilor McLain wanted to tell her constituents the delay was not caused by Metro.

Mr. Cotugno said the department would help her do that.

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

5.  RESOLUTION NO. 00-2995A, FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING CITIZEN APPOINTMENTS TO THE TRANSPORTATION POLICY ALTERNATIVES COMMITTEE (TPAC)

Gina Whitehill-Baziuk, Metro Transportation Public Involvement Planning Manager, described the resolution, which would approve the appointment of 3 citizen members to TPAC. The department interviewed 10 people and considered 18 applicants. Currently, there were 3 vacant positions. Two of the applicants (Bill Stewart and Jon Putman) were incumbents who reapplied. She recommended they be re-appointed. The third recommendation was Katie Mangle, who would be a new 2-year appointment. She was an urban planner with BRW, Inc. Councilors Monroe and Washington assisted with the interviews. The pool of applicants was excellent.

Chair Monroe mentioned concerns from some members of MCCI (Metro Committee for Community Involvement) regarding Ms. Mangle’s qualifications.

Ms. Whitehill-Baziuk said Ms. Mangle earned a degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, lived in the area for a couple of years and was currently a member of the Bicycle Transportation Alliance and the Lloyd TMA. As a planner for BRW, Inc., she worked on transportation projects across the board (road, transit, rail, bicycle, etc.). She was very well versed and was one of the few people who wanted a multi-modal system and recognized the value of all modes. She would also be the only woman currently appointed to the committee.

Chair Monroe said that was one of the determining factors in his decision to support her appointment. She was also delightfully well prepared. However, the type of employment she was involved in as a consultant seemed to create concerns regarding whether she was qualified as a citizen member of TPAC. He received e-mails from two members of MCCI.

Ms. Whitehill-Baziuk said she was not aware of that controversy. There was nothing in the bi-laws that restricted consultant appointees from participating in the process as a citizen. The circumstances would likely be different if TPAC reviewed a project. She asked if such a situation had occurred in the past.

Councilor Bragdon was not concerned about her qualifications. However, he wanted to know 1) if BRW, Inc. contracted with Metro and 2) if TPAC had any decision-making authority regarding those contracts. He guessed the answer was yes to the first question and no to the second.

Mr. Cotugno said contracts passed through Metro’s contracting procedures to the Committee/Council, never through JPACT or TPAC, who have dealt with policy related issues not contract issues. Therefore, the appointee would deal with policy issues. However, everyone appointed to TPAC has had a policy agenda, not just the consultants.

Councilor Bragdon said he approved of her appointment if councilors Monroe and Washington were satisfied with her professional credentials. He asked Mr. Cotugno if she were a member of TPAC if she would be prevented from having an opportunity to steer work toward her firm.

Mr. Cotugno said that was true.

Both Councilor Bragdon and Chair Monroe were assured. They approved of the appointment.

Chair Monroe said it sounded like a misunderstanding. He just wanted to express the MCCI concern and receive the assurance and clarification.

Councilor McLain said she had not seen them (the two e-mails) and was surprised.

Councilor Bragdon said he would forward them to her if he still had them.

Councilor McLain said it was important for the committee to recognize that most people had a job connection to part of the community.

Chair Monroe said TPAC members with transportation related knowledge and experience were ideal. They learned faster. Ms. Mangle had a broad base of interest and brought some perspectives to TPAC that were lacking in the other TPAC members. She also provided a woman’s perspective, welcome on any committee, especially TPAC. It would provide fresh ideas, variety and gender balance. There were three candidates with approximately equal ability and credentials - two women and a man. The other woman candidate was from a geographical area that was already represented. He said their names would be considered for future appointments in April 2000. He was very appreciative of the number of well-qualified applicants. Metro was able to choose among the best, not the worst. Mr. Stewart and Mr. Putman were appointees for 2 years and were doing a great job. They deserved to be re-appointed to use their experience.

Councilor Bragdon supported what Chair Monroe said. He considered Ms. Mangle’s background, mentioned in the e-mails, an asset rather than a liability, assuming there was no conflict of interest in the contracting. He also cited her balanced extra-professional affiliations and her educational background. He did not have a problem with her appointment.

Chair Monroe said he did not choose her because she was a resident of his Metro district.

Chair Monroe assigned himself to carry the resolution to the Council.

6.  UPDATE – MTIP PROPOSED PROCESS.

Mr. Cotugno followed up on the MTIP process update provided to the committee on October 17, 2000. The MTIP process was also scheduled for discussion at JPACT on November 9, 2000. The department’s proposal was to prepare a staff report and resolution based on the type of feedback and discussion they received from the committee and JPACT that proposed a process and set of criteria. They were still in a development mode. They miscalculated when they suggested the issue would be presented to the Committee/Council for adoption in December 2000. They proposed filing it for adoption, or at least consideration, then. The department needed to discuss that further with the Committee. The department’s next step, regardless of timing, was to propose a specific set of criteria and a process to follow. He referred to a memo,

2002-2005 MTIP Process, that they planned to submit to JPACT on November 9, 2000. (A copy of this document can be found in the permanent record of this meeting.) It outlined some of the issues and alternatives. The TPAC discussed the issues at length and provided some recommendations, plus some open-ended issues. He referred to the memo.

Mr. Cotugno reviewed the situation with the freeway projects. The ODOT funds available for modernization continued to shrink. As a result, the Sunset Highway project that was scheduled to open 2 years ago with the light rail line was now delayed to 6 to 8 to 10 years in the future before they will be completed. There were 2 more phases of the Sylvan project, a third phase for the eastbound lanes from Highway 217 into Portland, remains of the phase from Highway 217 west to Cedar Hills Boulevard and the section of Highway 217 from Beaverton to Sunset Highway. There were 5 remaining phases. One of which, 1 of the Sylvan projects, is the only project funded. The other 4 would be implemented in the future. Washington County said those projects had been committed a long time ago. They wanted to know when they would be completed. Mr. Cotugno said the MTIP funds were relatively limited. He referred to the memo.

Mr. Brandman also referred to the memo.

Mr. Cotugno said the dollar figures also accounted for the fact that the department already committed $6 million a year for an 11-year period to fund the Interstate MAX and South Corridor transit improvements. Therefore, for the 2 years in question, 2004 and 2005, the department already deducted the $6 million, $6 million commitment that was already made. What they were presenting to the Committee today was the residual.

Councilor Bragdon pointed out were the memo stated “…the Metro Council will adopt the process…” It should never be said or written that the Council will or will not adopt. To do so was presumptuous. The Council would consider it. He asked how current the 150 percent cut list was. He asked to what extend jurisdictions had reasserted or had a chance to change their priorities. He asked if their priorities were the same as 2-3 years ago.

Mr. Cotugno said no. They had not had a chance to reassert or change them. That was why TPAC suggested adding the words ”cautious consideration of additional projects.” Because of that concern, TPAC believed the door should be open, somewhat, to consider other projects.

Councilor Bragdon asked what the procedure was to open that door in a format with public (or elected representatives from the local jurisdictions) participation in the discussions.

Mr. Cotugno said they would design a process to be followed and schedule deadlines for application by the implementing jurisdictions, etc.

Councilor Bragdon mentioned 2 pitfalls on either side. One, would be to stay the course and go with a list that was not updated to include new ideas. It may advocate something the local jurisdiction no longer wanted. Two, would be to invite high expectations that could not possibly be satisfied. Either way, the process had to be public with an opportunity for citizens to comment. He asked how Metro could avoid the 2 pitfalls but achieve public involvement.

Mr. Cotugno said the process they followed in the past had application and evaluation periods, an opportunity for public comment on the evaluation period and the results, and a recommendation period where an actual funding proposal was presented. Every one of those steps facilitated public involvement. In the past, they required submittals to be accompanied by some local public involvement. Metro could increase that standard.

Councilor Bragdon asked if a jurisdiction would schedule public hearings where Metro announced its intention to adopt a certain process and criteria. He asked if the jurisdictions’ staff would call the Department to have it placed on a list.

Mr. Brandman said anything in the process would have required public hearings. If a jurisdiction suggested an important new project it would require hearings to comply with Metro’s public involvement process before they could even submit it.

Councilor Bragdon asked about keeping the same criteria and major discussions that regarded the Sunset Highway widening project. In the past it had not met the criteria. He asked if it was correct that the funds had not been used for freeway widening in the past.

Mr. Cotugno said Metro had ranking criteria based on various types of transportation evaluation measures (60 percent), such as congestion, cost effectiveness, safety, etc., and 2040 Plan related factors (40 percent), giving the highest priority to regional centers, central city and industrial areas. Metro would apply those criteria to any new project that might be considered, freeway widening or otherwise. Therefore, it had not been ranked using those criteria.

Councilor McLain referred to the TPAC issues. First, she said Metro worked long and hard to add to, update and finalize the criteria. The work always resulted in time lags and questions about whether the criteria were balanced. Therefore, unless there was a reason to open the criteria, she preferred the current instrument (original criteria) and believed it worked well. She was not sure why the Committee/Council planned to open the criteria up again. Second, she referred to new projects. She believed the region needed to focus on smaller, smarter, more refined projects that stood a better chance of receiving funding, given the current funding circumstances. She’d rather call them “refinement” projects, instead of “new” projects. It emphasized refining the system already presented to Metro, instead of going in a new direction, which might not fit the regional strategy. Replacement projects would fit in the refinement category. Third, big versus small projects created a $1 million question. What would the region receive from the project? Also, who would get it? How would it affect the overall regional transportation system versus just one segment? They needed to discuss how much of the region would be assisted by one large project. How many people would use it? She mentioned the positive affect of the Highway 47 project in the downtown Forest Grove area that also helped the trucking and forest industries, Gaston, Banks, Forest Grove, Cornelius and part of Hillsboro. Metro needed to look at function not size when assessing big versus small projects. The title should be “functionality” or “functional results” to show Metro had no preference for big or small, the agency wanted to add the most functionality possible to the regional transportation system.

Mr. Cotugno said at least one of the Transportation Department’s criteria would help with that determination. It was the cost effectiveness criteria. Theoretically, big, costly projects should yield big benefits. The same philosophy should also be true for smaller projects.

Councilor McLain asked about the timing of projects. Again, it was not big or small, but rather what segment was under consideration. For example, she mentioned a bike path. The issue was sequencing or ordering what should be included in the functionality or cost effectiveness. If that was what Mr. Cotugno was saying she would support his comments.

Councilor Bragdon asked if Metro was adequately assessing the freight needs outside the city of Portland. He saw that virtually all the freight categories were inside the city of Portland. However, there was a need to accommodate trucks in Washington County and certainly Clackamas County. The Interstate 205 area had real freight access problems. He asked if the program’s scope was broad enough.

Mr. Cotugno said the program scope was broad enough but the kinds of projects outside Portland that were important for freight were also important for general congestion. In Portland, there was a very distinct difference between access to the railroad, marine and air cargo terminals, and the very important role they play for freight, and their irrelevance for general traffic purposes. Elsewhere, where freight concerns were expressed, it was the bottlenecks in the general system that created problems for everybody (freight and passenger vehicles).

Chair Monroe mentioned the Highway 224 and Interstate 205 intersection as an example.

Mr. Cotugno said Metro completed projects elsewhere to improve freight mobility (Highway 47, and Highway 99W & 124^th). The biggest issues surrounded the terminals in Multnomah County.

Councilor Bragdon said the international terminals were regionally significant. They might be located in Portland, but much of the freight came from the other counties that received benefits.

Mr. Cotugno said it was a constant sore point for the Port of Portland. The Port has asserted that they have not received much recognition (especially from Washington County) for the broad regional and statewide benefits they have created.

Mr. Brandman said the South Corridor and the associated public process were proceeding fairly rapidly and the department completed the analysis of all the options. The Committee might want to know that the staff was consistent with direction of the Council throughout the entire process. The department was looking for alternatives to light-rail in the South Corridor, not light-rail. The election failed so now Metro was trying to implement plan B. However, the citizens did not follow the Council’s directive. Instead, they attended all the meetings and suggested that Metro should consider light-rail. The staff consistently answered maybe in the future if the Council instructed the department to do so. Currently, the staff was still focused on the options, which included a busway, HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) lanes and bus rapid transit. The Sellwood Bee printed a recent story that indicated citizen input kept the light-rail option on the table. They also quoted the staff’s commitment to studying light-rail alternatives. The story was amusing in that assuring the public Metro was not trying to reintroduce light-rail as an option, the agency appeared to be ignoring the public’s request that light-rail remain an option. It was hard to predict the outcome. They planned to keep the Committee/Council updated regarding the results of the study.

Councilor McLain believed the Committee/Council instructed staff not to ignore light-rail but instead, make sure that the alternatives would not block the light-rail option in the future. In the future, the public should know Metro was not anti-light-rail. The agency understood its validity as part of the multi-modal regional transportation system. Some of the councilors personally supported light-rail. However, the agency was trying to stay true to what the public said by a majority vote. The way the agency planned to express that was important. She offered to write an editorial in the Sellwood Bee. Metro should be recognized for trying to honor the will of the people, who, by public vote, asked the agency to analyze alternatives to light-rail. The Metro was trying to do that.

Mr. Brandman said the staff was not portraying the situation that way, either. Instead, they told the public to notify Metro if they favored the light-rail option.

Councilor McLain wanted Mr. Brandman to tell the public all the options were still open.

Mr. Brandman believed the staff had conveyed that message effectively to the public and they understood the public would have to work to help get it implemented. He believed they also understood the need to consider how alternatives might help or hurt future light-rail feasibility.

Chair Monroe said it was critical that if light-rail reemerged that it not be seen as actively promoted by Metro. Rather, the citizens of the community and leaders of the neighborhoods the system would pass through needed to bring light-rail to Metro. Based on what he heard from the public hearings, people in the Sellwood, Westmoreland, East Moreland, Brooklyn, Hosford and the Abernathy neighborhoods in Multnomah County still responded very favorably to light-rail as the transit solution to the south. He was not sure how the citizens or government leaders from the Milwaukie area felt. Their input indicating that light-rail should be reinvestigated was crucial.

Councilor Bragdon said he heard different things from different parts of his district. Yes, the area covered by the Sellwood Bee was interested in light-rail as an option.

COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

Councilor Bragdon addressed another transportation issue from another part of his district. At a community meeting last night in Hillsdale he discussed a library grant to encourage the town center in that area, and a safe walking and bicycling environment. He said Metro would be open to continue to provide that grant to them, provided they used it to achieve the intended purposes. The library could be in another location, provided it supported the town center plan. He alerted the Committee that the city of Portland might contact the Committee/Council with a different scope or project description for that plan. But the neighborhood seemed to support it.

ADJOURN

There being no further committee business, Chair Monroe adjourned the meeting at 2:35 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Andy Flinn

Council Assistant

Attachments to the Record

Metro Transportation Planning Committee meeting of November 7, 2000