MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, April 21, 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 3:36 PM.

1.  INTRODUCTIONS

None.

2.  CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF APRIL 7, 1998

3.  RESOLUTION NO. 98-2625, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO APPROVE A SIX-MONTH HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE (HOV) LANE DEMONSTRATION ON I-5 NORTHBOUND AND ASSOCIATED FINANCING

Terry Whisler, Senior Transportation Planner, Metro Transportation Department, said the resolution was modified and approved by the Technical Policy Advisory Committee (TPAC), then approved by the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT). The resolution would program about $2 million of state funds to implement a six-month pilot test of an HOV lane on a segment of I-5 between the Going and Delta Park interchanges. The money would be obtained through federal preservation dollars made available to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to improve the interstate freeway system.

Mr. Whisler provided a brief history of the HOV lane in that area. He said that during the trunnion repair on the bridge to Vancouver, a temporary HOV lane had been re-striped from the Lombard interchange to the Delta Park Interchange. During that time I-5 operated better than it normally did. ODOT plans to resurface that part of I-5 in two years, and part of that project was to continue and reinforce striping in this segment. This would advance the first stage of that project. The HOV lane would be in effect during the evening peak commuting period for six months, to test the feasibility of maintaining permanent HOV operations in that part of the corridor.

Mr. Whisler called attention to a minor error in the staff report that accompanies the resolution in the agenda packet. The staff report incorrectly states travel-time savings as three minutes; it should say one minute. Because the lane is only three miles long, one minute represents a significant savings. Currently, 10 percent of the travel on that corridor consists of HOVs. These vehicles would receive the benefit of a full minute. The residual 90 percent of current demand would enjoy improved travel through reduced stop-and-go events.

ODOT Region 1 plans to convene a technical committee to oversee the project. The committee will set performance criteria and monitor performance. In the end it will make a recommendation on whether to continue the HOV lane permanently.

There are no current plans to extend the HOV across the bridge or into Clark County nor to do any southbound improvements. Thus, this is a fairly limited improvement that will provide some benefit to existing HOV traffic and provide additional information for Metro’s regional modeling. Metro currently has no basis upon which to determine the feasibility of HOV operation in the region’s freeways. The 1995 RTP endorses investigating the feasibility of such operation. This is an opportunity to do that.

Councilor McLain said she understood the funds would come from money already budgeted for the planned paving project and that this would simply move the time frame forward. Mr. Whisler said not all the funding has been worked out. The bulk of funds will come from those allotted for the paving project, but additional funds will be needed to cover re-striping and enforcement.

Chair Washington will carry the motion to a meeting of the full Council.

4.  REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN (RTP) UPDATE

Tom Kloster, Senior Program Supervisor, Metro Transportation Department, summarized information on the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) as discussed at the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT)/Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC) joint meeting of April 15, 1998.

Mr. Kloster called the committee’s attention to a packet of information that came out of the JPACT meeting. The packet consists of 1) the briefing material prepared for JPACT, MPAC, and the Transportation Committee, titled “Round 1 Modeling Highlights;” 2) a memo to TPAC and the Metro Transportation Planning Committee, dated April 21; and 3) a draft list of all the proposed RTP projects for Round 1. (These materials are attached to the meeting record.)

The presentation to the joint meeting began with a presentation of the 2040 Growth Concept and how the policy work on the RTP fits with that. The highlight packet summarizes that presentation. The memo, which is a report back to TPAC, summarizes what went on at the joint meeting. On the second page of the memo, a list of bulleted items summarizes the key points from the conversations about the RTP projects. Key concerns were revenue and whether Metro can meet its own performance requirements. The purpose of bringing these issues up at this joint meeting was to begin a discussion at the policy level on how to fund the projects needed in the 20-year time frame, especially those things on the “strategic” list.

Chair Washington requested that Mr. Kloster explain the difference between “preferred” and “strategic.” Mr. Kloster said preferred projects are all the projects Metro would like to do throughout the region, to meet all of the performance measures Metro has laid out. The strategic list represents the minimum--the things that Metro must do. It represents things to do to catch up, since the region has been behind on transportation funding. There are now two strategic lists, which will be narrowed to one. The final list will provide a focus for going after funding. In the past, the RTP has been a huge list, which is not a good tool to take to Salem and argue for revenue.

Councilor McLain asked about the issue of timing between the infrastructure needed for urban reserves and the RTP. She said if the RTP needs to develop priorities based on 2040 connection needs. She noted that she and one other speaker had brought that up at the joint meeting. She asked that the point be added to the bulleted list on the second page of the memo. Mr. Kloster said he would do that. He said department wanted to present the projects in groupings that represent plans for the short-term, the medium-term, and the long-term, and this would fit with that format.

Councilor McLain said that a status report that came out of the Growth Management Committee, written by Fregonese and Calthorpe Associates, includes an update on transportation. She suggested the department take a look at that review.

Chair Washington said he had been to a meeting in the Linton neighborhood on their transportation plan, which includes plans for Highway 30. He said he had a briefing book and other information he would provide to the rest of the committee. He said the information is important.

Councilor Kvistad asked for help in reading the RTP Round 1 Project List.

Mr. Kloster said the first column shows the agencies that are working on this spreadsheet. He said a number of agencies are working on this same spreadsheet digitally. This keeps track of the versions. The second column shows numbers that identify the projects. The ‘95 RTP column shows the project number for projects that were also in the ‘95 plan. Mr. Kloster noted that the first page lists for the entire region. He said a lot of projects after the first page, as the numbers indicate, were not in the ‘95 plan.

The column labeled RTP sub-area is one of the seven functional sub-regions. The 2040 link shows the primary beneficiary of the improvement. As shown in this column, the first couple of pages list projects of benefit to the region. This column also indicates why a particular project needs to be implemented. The jurisdiction column shows the agency that will take the lead on designing and building the improvement. the project name is a quick way of referring to the project. The location column indicates roughly where the project would be. Project description column gives a rough description of the improvement. He said it is important to remember that the projects are described in much more detail in local plans. The RTP is simply an organizing tool. The check marks show in which of the systems Metro will model the projects according to what the jurisdictions have requested.

Councilor McLain noted that cost is not on the list. Mr. Kloster said that information is being gathered now. He said staff will be bringing that piece back to the committee in May.

Councilor McLain asked how safety weighs against capacity. Mr. Kloster said safety is the top priority. Improvements that affect safety will be done first. Councilor McLain said the same safety issue could be approached in different ways. She referred to a project near Jackson School Road and asked what the term “channelization” means. Mr. Kloster said that term generally applies to putting in barriers to channel traffic. For example, a median can be put in to prevent traffic from crossing a highway. It might have an effect similar to on/off ramps. That might be used in place of an overpass or an interchange. He said he expects considerable discussions at TPAC and JPACT on these issues.

Chair Washington asked for more clarification of the term channelization. Mr. Kloster said it generally means restricting turns in order to move traffic past a place it might have turned. Chair Washington asked Mr. Kloster to again explain the check-marks. Mr. Kloster said the check marks show in what model the project will be included. Some of the projects will be in all models: those that model the ideal system; those that model “auto-strategic,” projects, and those that model “non-auto strategic” projects. Auto strategic models are those that improve car travel and non-auto-strategic are those that model transit, bike, and pedestrian travel. Some projects fall into all three categories.

Chair Washington asked that the list show a legend, where terms like “auto-strategic” are explained.

Mr. Kloster acknowledged that the way the list is currently presented is cryptic. He said even others in the field found it hard to decipher. He said the department would be working to make the list easier to read and more accessible for everyone, including the public.

Mr. Kloster said the projects are currently being coded into models. The models will be worked on through May. The results will be taken back to TPAC in June in three workshops, and TPAC will recommend a revised list. The result at that point will be a single strategic list that will then be taken to this committee, JPACT, and MPAC for a second round. Performance measures might need to be changed. Also, the financial side will be discussed. The goal is to have a draft plan by the end of the summer to take public in September. A newsletter that puts all this into understandable terms is planned.

Chair Washington asked that in addition to defining the terms in the RTP list, that terms like “model” be explained for the public. Mr. Kloster said he would do that.

5.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

There being no further business before the Committee, Chair Washington adjourned the meeting at 4:12 PM.

Prepared by,

Pat Emmerson

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF APRIL 21, 1998

The following have been included as part of the official public record.