MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, January 20, 1998

Metro Council Chamber

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

Members Absent:  None.

Chair Washington called the meeting to order at 3:39 PM.

1.  INTRODUCTIONS

None.

2.  CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 2, 1997

3.  ORDINANCE NO. 98-721, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 96-647-C AND 97-715-B TO REVISE TITLE 6 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR REGIONAL ACCESSIBILITY

Andrew Cotugno, Director of Metro’s Transportation Department, introduced Kim White, Assistant Transportation Planner, who would be available to answer questions about the ordinance. He summarized the changes the ordinance makes, the substance of which has been discussed in previous committee meetings. He explained the document in the agenda packet (included as part of the meeting record), which is a draft of the changes to the ordinance. Shown along with the changes are comments made by JPACT members and the staff’s response to those comments. The document is the actual exhibit to the ordinance in that the document amends Title 6 to the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. The changes, shown in the draft document as strikes and underlines, will, upon approval, be incorporated into Title 6.

Mr. Cotugno recapped that the interim measures adopted a year ago in Title 6 were the first steps in defining what local governments need to be doing regarding transportation planning. These changes represent refinements to those definitions. He reminded the committee that Title 6 was not intended to be a comprehensive transportation system; the comprehensive system is contained in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which is still in progress. Title 6 was intended to highlight items that need attention sooner in local comprehensive plans, rather than later, when the RTP is adopted.

Mr. Cotugno introduced the adjustments by explaining that none of the changes tamper with the spirit of Title 6. All but one of the changes concern targets, recommendations, or requirements already identified for high-density centers and corridors. The changes would apply essentially the same standards, though less-aggressively, to other areas as well. Those targets, recommendations, or requirements include street design standards, non-single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) mode splits, whether mode splits would be the key measure of effectiveness or a key measure of effectiveness (staff recommends making mode splits the key measure inside centers and corridors and a key measure elsewhere), and level of service (LOS) standards.

The change that does not relate to centers or corridors adjusts specifications for local street connectivity. Originally a range of connectivity from 8 to 20 per mile was specified. This documents narrows the range to 10 to 16 connections per mile.

Mr. Cotugno also called the committee’s attention to a memorandum (attached to the meeting record) that suggests language changes to clarify the definition of “mixed use” in amendments to Title 10 of the Functional Plan. The changes

are needed to clarify that an incidental use located within a single-use area does not trigger requirements associated with a true mixed-use development. Examples of incidental uses include a hospital that has a deli inside or an office park with its own a day-care center. These are not true mixed uses, and the changes make that clear.

PUBLIC HEARING

Chair Washington opened a public hearing at 3:52 PM.

Rex Burkholder, Bicycle Transportation Alliance, requested that a change be made to the street design guidelines on page 4 of Title 6, lines 133 and 163. Under number 8 of both of those, the Alliance would like to see “striped bikeways” listed as the preferred way to accommodate bicycles. He said that even though a shared outside lane might be acceptable, in the Alliance’s view it would never be preferred.

Mr. Cotugno said that suggestion had been considered, but it had not been included because a shared outside lane might be the only possible option. He called attention to page 12 of the response (included in the meeting record), that lists a series of conditions that might make a shared outside lane the preferred option. For example, topography might limit the width of the road in an area where parking spaces might need to be given priority. In addition, low traffic speeds might permit a shared outside lane.

Mr. Burkholder said that the Bicycle Alliance agrees with the JPACT recommendation to list striped lanes always as “preferred,” with the understanding that any of the preferred options might not be possible.

Councilor McLain said she thought striped bikeways had already been listed as preferred. She did not know the change had not been made.

Mr. Cotugno said that striped bikeways had been specified as the preferred method of accommodating bikes on highways and roads, but that on the boulevards and streets the situation might be different. He said where traffic is moving fast, a separate, striped lane is important. In slower moving areas, providing wide sidewalks and on-street parking might take precedence, making a shared outside lane preferred.

Councilor McLain said she was still concerned about the safety of children who might be traveling to school. In light of the fact that these are recommendations rather than requirements, she favored changing the wording to list striped bikeways as preferred.

Mr. Cotugno said these recommendations targeted regional facilities and arterials. He thought that travel to schools would be mostly along local streets. Councilor McLain noted that TV Highway, which is a regional street, has a school located on it. Mr. Cotugno said that many places like that might require a striped lane. Others would not. The intention is to ensure flexibility of choice.

Chair Washington closed the public hearing.

Chair Washington asked if Councilor McLain wished to make a motion to change the wording of the recommendation in question.

Chair Washington called for a vote on the ordinance.

Councilor McLain will carry the motion to full Council.

4  THE SAFE KIDS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (SKIP)

Chris Peirce, Board Member, Bicycle Transportation Alliance, 4334 NE 32nd Place, Portland; Rex Burkholder, Bicycle Transportation Alliance, PO Box 9072, Portland, Oregon 97202; and Joe Keating, Board Member, Bicycle Transportation Alliance and member of the SKIP Task Force, introduced themselves to the committee.

Mr. Burkholder, explained the proposed program, which would ask that Metro set aside a pot of money to which groups could apply. The money would be used for programs to promote safe, independent travel for children. He referred to documents, included in the agenda packet, which summarize the SKIP proposal. He also mentioned a paper, included in the meeting record, that summarizes the issue the Alliance is trying to address. He said the issue is the freedom for children to walk and bike safely around their communities. He said in the past 25 years, the percentage of children who transport themselves to and from their own activities has dropped by 75 percent. More children are being transported by automobile, which contributes to congestion. He said this issue is national, and it is an issue that has not received much attention. He said the Alliance sees this as a regional problem that Metro can help address. He said solutions include building sidewalks, connecting schools and parks to cul de sacs and closed off streets by establishing easements and access-ways, and doing traffic-calming. The need has grown so great and the list of things that need to be done has grown so long that for many cities, it will be years before the problems will be addressed.

Councilor Kvistad said he was concerned about the political reality of pushing for more bike paths in Washington County. He asked how a campaign could be put together so he could push for progress on something like this.

Mr. Keating said that is why the Alliance is approaching Metro. The Alliance is seeking ideas on what percentage of the resources would be available to address this problem.

Councilor Kvistad asked how the Alliance had, in the past, worked with local jurisdictions, such as Tigard. Tigard is notoriously vocal about bike and pedestrian projects as opposed to automobile. He asked how consensus could be built for a project like this one in communities like Tigard.

Mr. Peirce said a consensus already exists that there is a problem with the schools. The schools know it, but they have not come to the Alliance because they have not had a way to address the problem The Alliance believes if a pool of funds were available, schools and other community organizations would then develop programs to address the problem.

Councilor Kvistad asked about ways in which the Alliance could develop a consensus among interested groups in the community, then approach Metro with ideas. He said he believed he could be more effective if he could respond to a grass roots demand instead of imposing another Metro program on local jurisdictions.

Mr. Keating said that if the Alliance develops an initiative, it will try to create such a consensus through the schools.

Mr. Peirce said he thought the PTAs would be the strongest allies.

Councilor McLain asked Mr. Cotugno whether Metro had ever set aside a percentage of funds for a particular mode split. Mr. Cotugno said no, that had never been done. He said funds have been allocated for programs, but not as a set-aside. He said programs have been prioritized in the past by mode split, and the top ten funded, to keep smaller programs such as those for bikes from having to compete for dollars with big programs such as those for bridge repair.

Councilor McLain suggested that the Alliance and, perhaps, the schools identify specific projects that contribute toward safety, then ask for funds for those. Everyone agrees on the general goal, but the percentage approach would be difficult to budget. It would be better if an actual product were defined.

Mr. Burkholder said the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has a pool of money for bike and pedestrian projects. The idea behind that is once a pot of money is available, interested parties will design projects and apply for funding. He said if no money is available, then no one puts the resources into identifying needs.

Mr. Cotugno said the same problem exists with the RTP. He said the emphasis for bikeways has been on adult transportation--on non-SOV mode share--through connecting the region and providing routes to major centers. It has not been on local destinations, such as to schools. Metro does not have routes mapped to schools in the region. That would be a new area for Metro.

Chair Washington asked that the Alliance provide a list five items it would like, in order of priority. He also recommended building regional consensus. He asked the Alliance to provide a specific request or list of requests. He said a percentage set-aside would have little success with the Council.

Mr. Cotugno said the way to plug this in is in the upcoming State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) process.

Councilor McLain explained that if the program is separate, it stands as a high priority on its own. If, on the other hand, it is bundled with other programs, then it must compete with other programs. She suggested that, in reality, not enough money will be available to support everything. She said the STIP might be the first goal, and the second might be to look for a stand-alone project.

Mr. Peirce said it will be frustrating to take back to the Alliance’s membership the message that this need will not be met soon.

Mr. Keating said the process to date has not allocated money to pedestrian and bike safety realities. That is why the Alliance had hoped for Metro to respond. The Alliance is moving closer to starting an initiative--perhaps the first ever applied to Metro--to mandate a response.

Chair Washington said he shares the Alliance’s frustration in matching growing needs against shrinking funds. He said he is willing to put this request in with the rest, but it will be a tough sell. He said the field is already crowded with people who have also been waiting a long time--some as long as 20 years--to receive funding for projects. He said he did not want to discourage the Alliance; he just wanted the Alliance to have a clear picture of what is realistic.

5.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

None

There being no further business before the Committee, Chair Washington adjourned the meeting at 4:40 PM.

Prepared by,

Pat Emmerson

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF JANUARY 20, 1998

Oral Testifiers ( testimony cards included)

Ordinance No. 98-721, to Revise Title 6 Recommendations and Requirements for Regional Accessibility

 Rex Burkholder, Bicycle Transportation Alliance