MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, December 5, 2000

Council Chamber

Members Present:  Rod Monroe (Chair), Jon Kvistad (Vice Chair) and Susan McLain

Members Absent:  

Also Present:    David Bragdon, Rod Park    

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

Chair Monroe called the meeting to order at 1:39 p.m.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 7, 2000 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

2.  RESOLUTION NO. 00-3014, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PLACING THE LINNTON PROJECT IN THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN (RTP).

Mike Hoglund, Metro Transportation Planning Manager, said it was a housekeeping resolution that would officially add the Linnton Project to the RTP. Approximately two months ago, another resolution approved the Linnton Project for inclusion in the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) from the Statewide Transportation Enhancement Selection Process. If the Metro Transportation Department considered it a worthy project and wanted to include it in an officially amended MTIP, first they had to include it in their financially constrained RTP. The department added the appropriate language to a draft of the resolution presented to the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT) that satisfied that requirement. However, the draft of the resolution presented to and adopted by the Metro Council did not include that language. Resolution No. 00-3014 would fix that problem.

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

3.  UPDATE – MTIP PROPOSED PROCESS

Andy Cotugno, Metro Planning Director, said the Metro Transportation Department announced approximately a month earlier that a public hearing would be scheduled today regarding the proposed MTIP process. However, that was based on the expectation that the resolution establishing the process would be adopted in December 2000. It was not scheduled for adoption until January 2001. There would be an announcement of a public hearing at another date preceding the consideration and adoption of the resolution by the Metro Council. Today was not that public hearing. However, everyone present at today’s meeting would have another opportunity to provide input along with everyone else. Metro was engaged in continued discussions. He mentioned a handout, 2002-2005 MTIP Process and Criteria, which described further discussions at the Transportation Policy Advisory Committee (TPAC) meeting on December 1, 2000. The document outlined what they discussed and recommended regarding a few items. The JPACT also planned to discuss the information at their next meeting on December 14, 2000. He referred to the handout. (A copy of the handout can be found in the permanent record of this meeting.)

Mr. Cotugno recommended that Metro pass a resolution in January 2001 that adopted all the criteria and timelines, so Metro could establish an application period between January 16, 2001 and March 1, 2000, followed by the evaluation and ranking of the projects.

Mr. Hoglund mentioned comments made by Karl Rohde, Councilor, Lake Oswego, at JPACT. Mr. Rohde suggested criteria for the allocation of funding across transportation modes to achieve a multi-modal balance of projects and provide support the 2040 Growth Plan. Mr. Hoglund said staff and a complete RTP could help provide ideas. Therefore, Metro could progress with all the projects in the RTP and create better guidelines compared to two years ago. However, that issue was not included. Maybe it needed to be included.

Councilor McLain said most of the document was positive and was proceeding nicely. However, the new projects area appeared fuzzy and problematic, instead of helpful. She understood that the new projects should come form financially constrained systems. That was direct, helpful and understandable. She also understood the idea that substitute projects would be required to meet all public involvement was also very clear. However, she did not know what the rest of it meant. It could mean different things to different people, especially in different counties. She did not see any guidance. She added that there were problems in the area of adding new projects. Before, the Metro Transportation Planning Committee seemed to be saying that new projects should relate to a change or final vote in the RTP, an improvement or a refinement of projects that were already on the list. New projects would be substituted for projects that did not work, were outdated or if they improved mobility and/or the region’s mode balance issue. She wanted to see more specificity in the area. The document could cause some trouble in its current form. She hoped there would be more opportunities to improve that section and asked for guidance.

Mr. Cotugno referred to the TPAC discussion and the old 150 percent cut list of projects that totaled approximately $45 million. The objective was to avoid getting trapped like the last allocation where there were $300 million worth of projects and only $75 million of projects Metro could allocate. Instead, the agency should create a good mix from which to consider without being excessive. Metro could limit the sets or groups of jurisdictions that could add projects. Or they might require some projects to be removed and replaced to maintain a manageable number and allow flexibility. He mentioned Clackamas County’s similar strategy to control project costs.

Councilor McLain suggested the Metro Transportation Department change the language in the documents to reflect more clearly Mr. Cotugno’s comments. She said the three things he mentioned were important to add (limiting projects and dollar amounts to what was reasonable, maintaining flexibility to remove and add different, individual projects, ensuring the projects addressed current needs).

Mr. Cotugno and Councilor McLain agreed to current needs subject to the limit of what was in the financially constrained system.

Mr. Hoglund said the program goals stressed funding the most critical projects that provided a clear public benefit.

Councilor McLain suggested they restate it.

Councilor Kvistad mentioned adding projects and suggested changing language on Page 3 of the document to read: “Generally a project could be submitted on behalf of…” instead of “…one or two…” He also suggested giving them lists. Allowing a couple projects could result in an unmanageable situation.

Mr. Cotugno referred to the document and said the language indicated two because the net increase of two for the groups of multiple cities was more appropriate than just one. It allowed more than just one jurisdiction to submit a project.

Councilor Bragdon followed up on Clackamas County’s concern expressed to TPAC. He heard something similar from another local jurisdiction regarding the net increase of projects. Focusing on the number of projects instead of the dollar value almost created a bias toward larger projects. He hoped the new wording could accommodate that concern.

Mr. Cotugno said it was the dollar amount, not necessarily the number of projects, that had to remain manageable.

Chair Monroe said in addition to today’s opportunity to provide input, there would be an additional noticed public hearing in January 2001 when the proposed MTIP resolution is scheduled for review and adoption by the Metro Council.

PUBLIC HEARING

Brian Newman, 10110 SE Waverley Ct., #19, Milwaukie, OR 97222, Councilor, Milwaukie, represented the City of Milwaukie and said there needed to be a rational funding allocation process right from the start. He suggested three criteria. They reflected what was in Mr. Cotugno’s handout, which, for the most part, Mr. Newman agreed with. He said the document was headed in the right direction. One, the 150 percent cut list was a good place to start. However, he hoped Metro would allow projects to be added. Milwaukie did not have any projects on the 150 percent cut list. However, the city had one or two projects they wished to submit as part of the process. Mr. Newman was not sure how the process worked. He asked if it was just Clackamas County that could submit. Mr. Newman also asked how Milwaukie could express its concerns.

Chair Monroe suggested Milwaukie contact two JPACT members: Mr. Rohde, who represented small cities in Clackamas County, and Bill Kennemer, Chair, Clackamas County Commission.

Mr. Newman added that too often the projects in the 150 percent cut list were older and did not necessarily reflect some of Milwaukie’s current transportation priorities. Or the projects may have been added by staff without appropriate council or public input. He hoped Metro would solicit some formal support from the local jurisdictions for the projects the agency moved forward. He also wanted to see the process institutionalized for future MTIP allocations.

Mr. Newman said, second, that regional equity was very important. Therefore, he supported multiple smaller projects instead of just a few large projects that monopolized the funding in a few corridors or jurisdictions. However, the smaller projects should have big benefits. Those that closed gaps, and finished systems and projects that were already on the table (completing the Spring Water Corridor connection to the emerging OMSI (Oregon Museum of Science and Industry) waterfront trail) were very important.

Mr. Newman said, third, that priority should be given to projects that implemented the 2040 Growth Plan and regional policy objectives (reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled and promoting transportation choices). He supported that direction in Mr. Cotugno’s document. He recognized that flexible federal funding was limited and it was important that the region use it wisely.

Councilor Bragdon said he and Chair Monroe were in Milwaukie yesterday and discussed these issues with the other members of the city council. It was great to have Milwaukie involved in the process and the city was definitely being represented.

Chair Monroe used the Spring Water Trail almost everyday and wanted to connect it to Metro.

Ross Williams, 1220 SW Morrison, Portland, OR 97205, represented Citizens for Sensible Transportation (CST) and offered comments that supported changes in Andy Cotugno’s document. Working from the 150 percent cut list made sense. The list was created 2 years ago and needed to be open to modification to reflect the current priorities of citizens in local jurisdictions. There needed to be better opportunities for citizens to participate in setting local priorities and to ensure that projects on the list reflected the views of local citizens and current elected officials. Having the jurisdictions’ elected officials formally submit their project priorities would help ensure that that discussion occurred at the local level. He hoped Metro would figure out a way to make that happen.

Mr. Williams said, second, that the CST believed that with limited funds the criteria should give heavy weight to projects that supported the region’s centers. It was critical to the region’s livability to enhance mobility within the centers and provide better access to them from surrounding communities. For regional centers, town centers and main streets to work Metro had to invest in some projects that would serve those areas. The region had to place public investments in those areas to ensure private investment would follow. Transit served the centers but did not serve employers and their workers very well. The region needed to improve mobility within the centers in order to improve transit mobility and parking, and reduce traffic. Otherwise, the expected job development would go elsewhere and result in increased dependency on the automobile and further traffic congestion increases in the region.

Mr. Williams said, third, that the process needed to consider whether money might be better allocated to new programs designed to support specific results rather than to fund specific projects. Programs to consider could include eliminating barriers so children could safely walk or ride a bicycle to school, eliminating barriers between transit centers and employment centers, and a program to increase the connectivity within regional centers. A program might not be the best approach to any of the problems. However, there ought to be an ability to consider it a possible solution where the general project criteria might not give weight to specific outcomes.

Mr. Williams said, four, that the CST encouraged Metro to place a high premium in the criteria on projects that could be completed and that provided benefits during the current funding cycle without depending on future funding. It was important to winning public support for investment in the region’s transportation infrastructure that the public saw results from the current investments.

Scott Bricker, 2938 NE 9^th, Portland, OR 97212, represented the Bicycle Transportation Alliance (BTA) and mentioned two main points: the technical rankings Councilor Rohde mentioned in JPACT and the citizen participation process. He said the technical rankings process should be considered across the all the modes. While the 2040 Growth Plan was stated in the issues and guidelines, and low costs for projects that had benefits where considered within each mode, there currently was no mode ranking system that examined pedestrian projects versus freeway projects versus freight projects versus bicycle projects. They were all evaluated within their own mode. Therefore, the actual allocation of modes was more of a political process, not a technical process. Most lower cost projects had high rankings but only within their own mode. There was no comparison to a freeway project. He believed Metro should look at the technical ranking and that it should be a continued consideration. The public participation process should also be opened up to people all over the region to solicit a variety of projects instead of limiting the process to the 150 percent cut list.

Frank Orem, 5025J Foothills Rd., Lake Oswego, OR 97034, represented the Sierra Club and the TPAC Transportation Demand Management Subcommittee. He followed the transportation planning process. The good news was it was dominated by the loudest voices and did not focus on relative cost effectiveness of solutions. The bad news was the process might not even have been supporting the best proposals and solutions. The region responded to problems (long commutes, extended congestion) with more transportation facilities. However, the underlying problems (choices in land-use, subsidies for cars) resulted in expensive solutions with many downsides (possible cost per commuter in the South Corridor Study of approximately $20,000). There were no proposals to bring the jobs closer to the people. Portland in the north McAdam district considered spending one-third of their $1 billion investment just on parking for cars.

Mr. Orem said there had to be better solutions. He suggested 3 things as part of the MTIP process. One, expand the list of options to fund non-transportation projects that might not have been considered on the project list. There were many (moving jobs closer, education, traffic demand management, commute tax, etc.) Second, Metro should include and use the criteria that properly assessed the various options and their cost effectiveness. This would require a clear understanding of what the region was trying to accomplish and its relative values. That would be hard but the region should try to do it. Third, the region should define and enlarge some program areas (traffic demand management, school and bicycle safety). He believed they would prove to be cost effective.

Catherine Ciarlo, P.O. Box 9072, Portland, OR, represented the BTA. She cited Mr. Rohde’s comment that if he had known the criteria would have led to the current result he may not have voted for that particular option. That concept had trickled down to the transportation world. There was the idea that it was a fairly political process in end that needed some direction to help get the categories straight and rank projects according to the benefits they provided to everyone, not just within their narrow categories. She supported two things, in particular, in the document: looking at criteria or ranking systems that value projects that could help support the 2040 Growth Plan. One, the region articulated its goals for compact, livable communities and now was the opportunity to make key investments that could leverage projects the region already started. The National Centers for Disease Control planned to release a variety of research that demonstrated that people’s health was profoundly affected by the type of community they lived in. Communities where people could walk, ride bicycles and use transit led to overall improved public health. It was something to think about as the region designed its communities. Two, she also supported giving local jurisdictions the opportunity to provide input at the local level.

Chair Monroe appreciated the last comment and said public input should always be gathered before a decision is made.

4.  UPDATE – SOUTH CORRIDOR STUDY

Chair Monroe said he was also Chair of the South Corridor Steering Group that consisted of local officials who represented Clackamas County, Milwaukie, Portland and Metro. The purpose of the study was to examine transit options to the south. The group was created following the defeat of the South-North Light Rail proposal in Clackamas County. He added that it passed in Multnomah County. The region decided not to abandon pursuing transit choices to the south. However, the group also decided to broaden their outlook to include an examination of alternative transit choices in that area and to not study light-rail any further during the study. The study process was ongoing.

Richard Brandman, Metro Transportation Planning Director, discussed the presentation. He also provided an update of the process. It was drawing to a conclusion of the first stage. In the spring, there would be a determination of what needed to proceed in the Environmental Impact Statement so it could enter into the project development phase and leave the planning phase behind. The Metro Transportation Department conducted their work in the corridor for approximately 1 year. They received initial feedback from the listening posts arranged by Councilor Washington and others. The department identified, through the process and a survey conducted in Spring 2000, three distinct legs of the corridor (Portland to Milwaukie, Milwaukie to Clackamas Town Center, Milwaukie to Oregon City). They also identified 3 different sets of potential issues, problems and solutions in each corridor leg. Therefore, the technical and public involvement work he planned to review for the Committee was geared toward the 3 distinct segments of the South Corridor. Although the work was designed to have a potentially different solution for each segment, each option would need to be integrated to work effectively as a whole.

Dave Unsworth, Metro Principal Transportation Planner, reviewed the alternatives examined in the study phase as required by the Federal Transit Administration and a no build based on the fiscally constrained RTP. They included a variety of alternatives in the South Corridor Study. There were higher levels of congestion associated with the no build than with any of the other alternatives. He mentioned that all options had some advantage over the no-build, but the advantages were of different magnitudes. He referred to the handout South Corridor Update. (A copy of the handout can be found in the permanent record of this meeting.)

Chair Monroe asked if a volume to capacity ratio of 1 was gridlock.

Mr. Unsworth said it was not necessarily gridlock, but it was stop and go traffic. It depended on the definition. Motorists would not want to be in 1.29 congestion. He referred to the handout again.

Councilor Bragdon asked that if the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane ran down the middle if the route if bus passengers would wait at and island. He asked if there were stops on an HOV lane.

Mr. Unsworth said generally there were not many stops. Maybe there could be one at a park and ride. Once north of Milwaukie it was a highway route. Getting people from one side of McLoughlin to the other would be very difficult. There were only a handful of intersections. The Transportation Department’s proposal was to use local buses to serve the inner southeast neighborhoods. Most buses would operate express from Milwaukie to the bridgehead at Hawthorne. They also examined building pedestrian bridges across McLoughlin with online stations. That required much more right-of-way access. The Metro Transportation Department thought the environmental impacts were significant. It could be done. However, they chose a lower cost alternative.

Mr. Brandman reviewed the land-use and transportation results. He referred to the document.

Councilor Bragdon asked about frequency of commuter rail versus a busway and how long a passenger would have to wait. He asked if that was factored into the equation.

Mr. Brandman said yes it was factored into the numbers. He referred to the in-vehicle and out-of-vehicle times listed on the handout.

Councilor Park inquired about the High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane and excess capacity. He asked if it was restricted to passenger vehicles.

Mr. Brandman said the HOV lane would include buses and carpools. The HOT was not specifically modeled for the study.

Councilor Park wanted to ask if freight had a certain need if they would be willing to pay a premium. He wanted to know if the region would gain anything by pulling trucks off the other lanes. But the Metro Transportation Department did not model for that, but could examine that issue later if this proceeded.

Mr. Brandman returned to the handout.

Councilor Bragdon referred to the capital costs and asked if it included the vessels or vehicles.

Mr. Brandman said yes. It was a large portion of the cost for the river transit option (vessels, docks, park-and-ride lots, etc.) All the options included costs associated with vehicles.

Mr. Unsworth said there were also bus costs associated with the river transit option’s capital costs.

Mr. Brandman referred to the document. The Metro Transportation Department planned a staff recommendation that was consistent with what they heard during the public comment process.

Councilor Bragdon asked how Lake Oswego and the West Side fit into the study.

Mr. Brandman said the West Side did not fit into the main effort that was part of the study, which was created to examine travel patterns in the Southeast Corridor east of the Willamette River. The major focus was to determine what would replace light-rail in the corridor. At JPACT, Roy R. Rogers, Commissioner, Washington County, requested an examination of the potential for a circumferential commuter rail (from Milwaukie to Lake Oswego) and how it would perform if implemented into the West Side Wilsonville to Beaverton Commuter Rail project. They did not have a working group or citizen process to examine that issue. It was more a request for technical information. Therefore, the citizen effort was oriented exclusively to the East Side of the river.

Gina Whitehill-Baziuk, Metro Transportation Public Involvement Planning Manager, described the South Corridor Study public involvement process. They started the process approximately 1 year ago. The Metro Transportation Department spoke to stakeholders, community leaders, people who had been involved in the process, and asked them about their issues, concerns and what type of process they wanted to see, etc. They created three working groups for the three distinct segments of the South Corridor. She described the document South Corridor Study, Transportation Alternatives, Public Comments Report, Public Comment Period, October 16 – November 17, 2000. (A copy of the handout can be found in the permanent record of this meeting.) She explained the draft recommendation from each of the 3 citizen working groups, adding that in the Portland to Milwaukie segment, there was strong citizen support for a re-examination of light-rail.

Mr. Brandman added that the Metro Transportation Department had discussions with the agency’s local partners. The jurisdictions’ comments were similar to those of their citizens during the last few months. He explained that the city of Portland requested that light-rail be re-examined from Portland to Milwaukie, and that a cheaper light-rail option must be examined. It would also be a challenge to fund the large projects.

Councilor Bragdon mentioned a hybrid. He asked Mr. Brandman to address the possibility of using light rail technology on existing freight lines, particularly between Milwaukie and Lake Oswego. He asked if it was possible that would or could be evaluated.

Mr. Brandman said the Metro Transportation Department was scheduled to discuss that issue. Generally, putting light-rail on existing freight lines was not usually done because in many instances there was no capacity. Also, having light-rail vehicles operating on the same trackage used by freight vehicles was not allowed by the Federal Railroad Administration, which had jurisdiction. It could be done in instances where there were clear windows of operation (rush hour, etc.).

Chair Monroe said on December 11, 2000 at 3 p.m. the South Corridor Policy Committee would decide which projects to include in the Environmental Impact Study. Like all Metro meetings, it would be open to the public.

5.  UPDATE – BI-STATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

Chair Monroe said he suggested to the Bi-State Transportation Committee, which recommended to JPACT and the Washington Regional Transportation Council, that a meeting be held somewhere in the Metro region (perhaps at the Port of Vancouver), which would involve leaders from the Oregon and Washington legislatures. The meeting would provide them with an opportunity to meet one another and discuss transportation issues critical to both states. He planned to provide more information soon.

COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

ADJOURN

There being no further committee business, Chair Monroe adjourned the meeting at 3:01 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Andy Flinn

Council Assistant

Attachments to the Record

Metro Transportation Planning Committee meeting of December 5, 2000