MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, June 23, 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 1:39 PM.

1.  INTRODUCTIONS

Chair Washington welcomed Lynn Peterson, a former Metro transportation planner, who is now with 1000 Friends of Oregon.

2.  CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF MAY 19, 1998

3.  SOUTH/NORTH LIGHT-RAIL STEERING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

Richard Brandman, Program Director, Metro Transportation Department, summarized the South/North Light Rail Steering Committee’s recommendations for the locally preferred strategy (LPS). He said these recommendations will be brought before this committee on July 7 for a vote, then before the full Council for final adoption on July 23. He said the Portland City Council had already adopted this strategy, and Clackamas County, Multnomah County, and Tri-Met will consider it in the next two weeks.

Mr. Brandman said the committee recommends that the full alignment eventually run from Clackamas Town Center in the south to Vancouver in the north, and that it be built in three phases. The first phase would run from the Rose Garden Arena to the Linwood Park-and-Ride in Milwaukie. The second phase would extend the line south to Clackamas Town Center and north to Kenton. The third phase would continue to Vancouver.

The alignment the committee recommends would start at the north side of the Town Center and go alongside Highway 224 past Clackamas Community College, Oregon Institute of Technology, and the Aquatic Center, with a Park-and-Ride lot at Linwood. It would serve the industrial park at Freeman Way and have a station in the heart of Milwaukie at site of the old Safeway store. From there it would go north along McLoughlin Boulevard, serve OMSI and Southeast Portland, and cross the river at Caruthers. On the west side it would traverse the mall from Portland State University to Union Station. It would go into North Portland on the east side of the freeway near the Blazer Arena, with a station on Russell serving the Eliot Neighborhood. It would continue north beginning near I-5 and then tie into Interstate, with a terminus at Kenton.

Mr. Brandman said the recommendations presented here represent a combination of contributions from Metro’s Project Management group, the Citizen’s Advisory Committee, and citizens of the community. He stressed that the public has been a major contributor. He praised the public involvement staff for soliciting public input. He also praised the staff for really listening to what the public had to say in developing the final recommendation.

He said a number of issues remain. These include a request from Oregon City’s mayor, Dan Fowler, that Oregon City not be forgotten as an eventual destination (see page 2 of the recommendations, included in the meeting record). A study will be initiated after the final environmental impact statement is completed to determine the best way to go to Oregon City--via I-205 or McLoughlin Boulevard.

Staff is also listening to those who would like to see an east-side connection between OMSI and the Oregon Arena. Another study would need to be done to determine the best route. Another issue is that Tri-Met would light rail to go to the airport, which might provide a way to reach Clark.

Chair Washington asked if light rail were to do to Clark County, would Tri-Met or C-Tran provide the service? Mr. Brandman said C-Tran and Tri-Met would need to make an operating agreement. He said C-Tran currently operates in the I-5 corridor, with a stop at Gateway to allow transfer to light rail. It also goes downtown. Most likely Tri-Met would provide the service, and C-Tran would reimburse Tri-Met.

Other issues concern downtown. A number of questions have arisen about how to get close to the train station. Mr. Brandman said he believes there is now a good way to get almost across the street from it. Also, there was a question as to whether the apartments on Harrison street should have a station out in front. The recommendation is to put one there and have it also connect with a proposed streetcar line.

Mr. Brandman said a number of technical issues remain, such as how to minimize disruption and traffic impacts at Broadway and Weidler. He said these types of issues are bound to come up fairly regularly as the project proceeds.

Mr. Brandman reminded the committee of two actions the Council will be asked take in July. One is on the LPS, which is the federal process. The other is on the local land-use process, the Land Use Final Order (LUFO), which will be discussed in committee early in July before being voted on in committee on July 21 and in Council on July 23. He emphasized that the LUFO is about the same alignment, but said in legal terms. The LUFO does not, as some have suggested, do more than that. It does not define land uses around stations. That comes out of station-area planning.

Councilor McLain asked if Union Station was the end of the first segment. Mr. Brandman said no, the Rose Quarter would be.

Chair Washington thanked the staff for the excellent work done on this project. He said the information provided to his committee has been good, and the process has been an open one. He said the staff has done a good job listening to and at least trying to address the concerns of those who have disagreed along the way.

4.  METRO TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (MTIP) CRITERIA

Recommended Criteria

Andrew Cotugno, Director, Metro Transportation Department, called attention to a memo (included in the agenda packet) that summarizes the Metro Transportation Improvement Program’s (MTIP) overall solicitation and ranking process for deciding how funds will be allocated. He said generally funds are provided for one of two general categories: 1) freeways, and 2) everything else. It is up to Metro to decide what that “everything else” is--e.g., arterials, transit, bikes, or freight.

The MTIP selection process would rank projects according to modal criteria, then fund across mode categories to meet some basic criteria, also outlined in the memo. The criteria seek geographic balance in project distribution, to encourage multi-modal transportation, and to further 2040 goals. Also, funds will be allocated to meet past commitments first. Some past commitments are for projects that have been deferred and some are for phased projects.

The process will assign projects to a modal category, then rank them according to a set of technical criteria. Public reaction will be sought before the final recommendations are made.

Mr. Cotugno said the purpose of presenting the MTIP criteria here today is to seek public input through a public hearing on the appropriateness of the criteria themselves. The underlying question is, has staff identified criteria that will identify the best projects within modes, and has it weighted each factor correctly (e.g., cost-effectiveness versus safety)? The memo in the agenda packet presents seven questions that have come up during reviews by the Technical Policy Advisory Committee (TPAC) and the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT).

Mr. Cotugno requested time after the public hearing to go through each of the seven questions and discuss them with the committee. He said the current version of the criteria is a draft, and input from the committee would be helpful at this point. He said he would like to take a final set of recommendations to TPAC on Friday, June 26, and to JPACT, July 9, before coming back to this committee and then to Council for action.

Public Hearing

Chair Washington opened a public hearing at 1:58 PM. No one came forward to testify, so he closed the public hearing.

Recommended Criteria (cont.)

Mr. Cotugno returned to a discussion of the seven questions as they relate to the MTIP criteria.

The considerations posed in the questions are not currently part of the criteria. The overriding question is, should they be?

1)  Should Metro, in making its funding decisions, take into account whether local jurisdictions have deployed their transportation funding in support of 2040 goals?

Councilor Kvistad asked about allocation of funds and geographic equity. He asked whether geographic equity meant funding equity or historical equity. Mr. Cotugno said a formula has never been used for geographic equity. He said funds have been distributed throughout the region and a rough balance has been sought, but the amount of money varies from year to year depending on projects that are underway. Big, expensive projects, such as the I-84 project, will tilt the scale. Historic equity has not been a consideration.

Councilor Kvistad asked Mr. Cotugno to explain the technical ranking (included as Attachment D in the agenda packet).

Mr. Cotugno said first the project would be defined by modal type--bike, pedestrian, or freight. Then points would be assigned as listed in the columns. Using freight as an example, the cost per truck-hour of delay eliminated by that project would be estimated, and the dollars per hour saved that the improvement would be calculated from that estimate. In general, all the projects would be measured by hours saved --effectiveness--and by dollars per hour saved--cost-effectiveness. A third measure would be safety. In the case of freight, that might be truck accidents.

The other pages address the place each project serves in implementing 2040. Attachment E shows all but freight projects and the page after that shows freight projects. Projects proposed for places Metro has determined have the highest regional interest will receive the most points.

Chair Washington asked about preferential treatment for local jurisdictions that spend their local money on implementing 2040 goals. He asked whether the committee was being asked at this time to do that. Mr. Cotugno said no. He said that in fact, that is not currently part of the criteria and he, personally, does not think it should be. But he is asking for input from the committee on that. Chair Washington said he could see nothing wrong with Metro giving preference to those jurisdictions..

Councilor McLain said in her view Metro is already giving preference implicit in funding Boulevard projects. But she thought the question concerned how jurisdictions have spent their local funds. She said some local jurisdictions, such as Washington County, have raised their own money for projects that further 2040 goals, and they want credit for that. She said she thought it would make sense in that case for Metro to give credit to jurisdictions that provide a larger local match for projects. She said that many local jurisdictions feel the central city does not understand suburban transportation needs and connections, She thought that if credit were to be given for local matching funds, those local jurisdictions could adapt the projects to their own particular circumstances and not be held to central city standards. She also said the suburbs have a gap in the transit services they receive, and that needs to be taken into consideration. In summary, she said there are three important questions relevant to the suburbs: 1) Are they getting credit for the matches they have? 2) If so, are the differences in circumstances being taken into consideration? and 3) If conversations between the suburbs and Tri-Met on Tri-Met’s 10-year plan comes to bear, will Metro be willing to turn more dollars toward those efforts?

Mr. Cotugno said the extra local effort has been accounted for in the administrative criteria (see attachment C). One of those criteria is “overmatch.” Mr. Cotugno said in his view Metro should focus on funding regional projects and stay away from putting pressure on local jurisdictions for how they spend local money. In his view, local jurisdictions have legitimate local concerns and priorities that do not necessarily concern the region. They need to spend their money on those things. For example, Metro gives a higher priority to regional centers than to town centers, but the towns themselves do not and should not. To them, their downtown is the most important, and that should be encouraged.

2)  Should adherence to the Street Design Guidelines be a prerequisite for funding?

Mr. Cotugno said the point behind this question is to ask whether funding should be tied to adherence in lieu of making the guidelines into requirements. Some jurisdictions feel that tying funding is coercive; others don’t. As an aside, Mr. Cotugno said some people misunderstand what the guidelines do. He said they guidelines do not require all street to be boulevards. Rather, there are guidelines for four different types of roadways, some that prioritize auto travel and some that prioritize mixed modes to varying degrees. The classifications are standard ones used in the transportation industry and were adopted as part of the Framework Plan. The point is that if a project is a highway project, then it should meet the highway design guidelines. However, there has been discussion about whether to make the designs requirements or guidelines. It was decided to make them guidelines, but to encourage their implementation through funding decisions. These are those funding decisions. Mr. Cotugno said in his view, it is appropriate to use funding to encourage implementation. He added that the guidelines offer considerable flexibility for local jurisdictions to adjust to circumstances.

Councilor McLain said she agrees up to a point. She said in her view, if it is Metro dollars, they should be spent to fulfill recommendations Metro makes. But she could foresee trouble spots where roads under different jurisdictions meet. One such spot is at Cornell Road near Orenco. Local jurisdictions differ on what they want to do, but the roads need to match. How would a Metro handle that?

Mr. Cotugno said in that particular case, Metro concurs with Hillsboro that Cornell Road at that location is a five-lane street; it is not a road nor a highway nor a boulevard. Metro would look at what other things need to be done in nearby streets to bear the traffic.

Mr. Cotugno said there is a second half to this question, and that is now to monitor what is done after the projects are funded. The difficulty comes because projects receive funding before the engineering work is done. The level of detail needed to determine whether they meet design guidelines is missing. Somehow, the jurisdictions would need to commit to following the guidelines, and Metro would need to monitor projects to be sure they are followed.

3)  Metro would like to fund some “Boulevard” projects, so how should preference be assigned?

Current criteria assign an extra 10 points to these projects. Alternatively, Boulevard projects could be flagged through administrative criteria.

Councilor McLain asked if the administrative criteria would be awarded in addition to the extra 10 points. Mr. Cotugno said no. Councilor McLain said in that case, she thought the administrative criteria would be the better way to go. She thought it would provide more flexibility in comparing projects. Mr. Cotugno said he agrees. He said in his view, it would be easier and more straightforward to flag the Boulevard projects, so everyone knows which ones they are, then determine which to fund. He said if you rely on points alone, you might not know which are the Boulevard projects.

In a “nod” test, Chair Washington and Councilor McLain indicated they approve of encouraging Boulevard projects through flagging them in the administrative criteria section. Chair Washington said he sees merit in the assigning points, also. Councilor Kvistad said he wanted to think about the whole issue more.

Councilor McLain said that offering additional points might encourage people to submit Boulevard projects. Mr. Cotugno said encouragement might be handled through stating explicitly that Metro wants to fund Boulevard projects. He said the way it is currently presented--i.e., simply including it in the list of administrative criteria--does not call attention to that fact. He said the same is true for funding projects that support affordable housing. He said by stating Metro’s desire explicitly, people will know it wants to fund some of those projects.

4)  Are the freight criteria appropriate?

The Port of Portland is concerned that a simple measure of industrial employment does not reflect the economic importance of the area. Many places, such as busy truck docks, move lots of product and have lots of economic activity, but few workers. The truck drivers don’t work there. The Port would like to have a measure of industrial activity and economic importance rather than strictly one of industrial employment. Mr. Cotugno said he doesn’t know the most objective way to measure that. He said he is hoping the Port will come up with something.

Another criteria concerns encouraging global competitiveness. Mr. Cotugno said it is hard to figure out what promotes global competitiveness when you don’t know what fuels it. Councilor McLain said she doesn’t know of a good definition for global competitiveness. Does it promote import/export activities? Is it all export? What kinds of products? She believes we need to address this, but she is not sure how.

Councilor Kvistad he, too, believes this is important and we need to develop some proactive steps. Chair Washington said this is one of the most important emerging areas in transportation planning. We might not have answers, but we need to start addressing it anyway. Councilor McLain said freight movement is an area in which Metro needs to look at the unusual, not just the usual. For example, the movement of nursery stock follows a particular intricate pattern of its own. It is important to this area economically, but the transportation pattern is unique.

5)  Should the evaluation of cost/rider for transit projects be adjusted to account for different objectives?

Mr. Cotugno reiterated that some criteria measure effectiveness and some measure cost-effectiveness. He said if projects are ranked based only on ridership, then the downtown area will always outrank outlying areas. Cost effectiveness measures only cost per rider, so the downtown will always win. If getting the most return for the public dollar is the only goal, then only the downtown will be served. But if you have different goals for different areas--for example, a goal of 50% transit ridership downtown and 25% in the suburbs--then suburban projects would not have to compete directly with downtown ones. As a starting point, projects could be lumped as being in “core areas” or “emerging areas.” Tri-Met’s “Transit Choices for Livability” emphasizes suburban areas, so Metro should make sure its criteria do not put those at the bottom. Mr. Cotugno said he thought the criteria for effectiveness are adequate, but the cost-effectiveness criteria--cost per rider--should reflect the differences between areas.

Councilor McLain said that criteria based on establishing different goals for “core” and “emerging” areas are not as clean as those based on “per rider,” so it will be important to be careful about how we talk about it. She said we will need to clearly define the targets.

Mr. Cotugno said targets for non-single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) mode shares have already been identified and adopted. Those would be used.

6)  Is there enough emphasis on safety?

Chair Washington asked what the definition of safety is here. Mr. Cotugno said he did not know exactly, but the question had been raised in a letter from Commissioner Rogers to JPACT. The letter said Metro’s criteria emphasize things like growth areas and 2040 at the expense of safety and of problems that might exist in non-growth areas. That is the genesis of this question and the next one. Mr. Cotugno said in his view safety has been addressed adequately. Out of the 100 points, 25 are for safety. That could be increased but 25 is about right.

7)  Are growth areas overemphasized in related to developed ones?

Mr. Cotugno said he thought that the issue had been addressed. He said that developed areas already have a competitive edge, because in assessing problems, they have them whereas growth areas do not. Growth areas have only “forecast” problems. Thus, for 60 of the 100 points, developed areas have an edge. For the remaining 40, it is a mixed bag. He did not think that overall the developed areas were being penalized. The committee agreed with Mr. Cotugno on this issue point, indicated by a “nod” test.

Chair Washington added that in his view growth areas need attention, but he did not see that these criteria do that at the expense of developed areas.

Mr. Cotugno said the MTIP criteria will modified and then be presented for adoption at a later date.

6.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

There being no further business before the Committee, Chair Washington adjourned the meeting at 2:48 PM.

Prepared by,

Pat Emmerson

Council Assistant