MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING

Wednesday, September 5 2002

Council Chamber

Present:    Rex Burkholder (Chair), Rod Monroe

Absent:    Bill Atherton (Vice Chair) (excused)

Also Present:  Carl Hosticka

Chair Burkholder called the meeting to order at 10: 19 a.m.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 18, 2002 TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEETING.

2.  TIMELINE, COUNCIL POLICY AND PROJECT DISCUSSION RELATED TO THE REGIONAL DISCUSSION DRAFT REAUTHORIZATION OF THE TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21^ST CENTURY (TEA-21)

Andy Cotugno, Director, Planning Department, reviewed the major funding and policy issues from the Regional Discussion Draft document in the agenda packet (included with the permanent record of this meeting). He reported that the biggest policy issue affecting Metro’s ability to implement the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is in the New Starts category. He said the new starts process is currently and purposely a difficult one because of the large amount of dollars at stake. The difficulty of the process serves as a screening tool to hold down the competition. He said there is a proposal being discussed at the congressional level now to streamline the process for projects less than $100 million, which would certainly benefit Metro if we wanted to initiate some streetcar projects such as North Macadam. The disadvantage to streamlining the process is that it would attract lots more competition from around the country. Chair Burkholder asked if current requirements for borders and corridors had flexibility regarding the funding of management programs vs. simply adding more concrete. Mr. Cotugno suspected it did not as those types of projects would be eligible under the State Transportation Program (STP) and other federal highway categories. He added that even if the borders and corridors program were made larger, it would still only fund 20%-30% of the overall project cost of an I-5 trade corridor. Chair Burkholder asked about the ratio of STP dollars going to Departments of Transportation (DOTs) vs Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). Mr. Cotugno reported there was ongoing discussion surrounding the STP, National Highway Systems (NHS) and the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program (CMAQ), and whether or not historical spending patterns adequately represented those three sources in MPO areas. There could additional discussion about earmarking some portion of those sources that must be spent in MPO areas. Chair Burkholder felt that could be examples of something that might be considered a regional/MPO concern. Chair Burkholder asked Mr. Cotugno about a timeline for adopting policy. Mr. Cotugno said November for projects and policy. His sense was they may want to carry all of these, but prioritize issues for the lobbyists. Mr. Cotugno described and discussed potential projects (see Memo to TPAC from Andy Cotugno re: Regional Project Priorities for Reauthorization of TEA-21) included with the permanent record of this meeting). Mr. Cotugno suggested having the discussion at the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT) next week. Chair Burkholder asked Councilor Monroe, as Chair of JPACT, to comment. Councilor Monroe agreed that there should be discussion at JPACT regarding priorities. He added that it would be advantageous for some of the JPACT leaders to meet with representatives of our congressional leaders, or their transportation staff people, to be sure we are all on the same page.

Debbie Murdock Portland State University (PSU), said she and Mr. Strathman were present to answer any possible questions about the University Transportation Research Center proposal. She said they were seeking authorization of a transportation center at PSU that would allow expansion of the funding available for transportation research in the region.

Jim Strathman, College of Urban and Public Affairs, added that they had participated in the University Transportation Center’s program since its inception in 1987. He said their research was mostly focused on transit operations and planning and if they were to move to a centrally authorized center they could broaden their range of issues to include more multi-modal considerations.

Councilor Monroe commented that Metro already does a lot of planning research in the areas of transportation, such as just described that the PSU research center would do. He asked how the research center would mesh with the work that Metro does. Mr. Strathman envisioned creation of an advisory board that would consist of some major transportation interests in the region, who would define a list of research priorities for the center, and translate that into Requests for Proposals (RFPs) from transportation researchers for review by the board. Councilor Monroe asked who he anticipated would be represented on such an advisory board. Mr. Strathman responded that it would be people intimately familiar with research needs and priorities that Metro faces in its transportation program, as well as other jurisdictions and organizations in the region, i.e. Trimet, the City of Portland, ODOT, the Port of Portland. Chair Burkholder clarified that they were seeking an endorsement from JPACT and Metro that this would be a useful expenditure of federal dollars. Mr. Strathman said yes, and beyond direct support, they would like support that the activities in this region are of national significance. Ms. Murdock added that they did not have any intention of taking a transportation related initiative to the delegation separate from the local planning process. She felt this project bridged a regional need because the research that would be done at the center would be relevant throughout the region. Mr. Cotugno felt the proposal was worth supporting and added that if it came to pass, they would be interested in serving on the board to assure coordination both ways.

3.  COUNCIL INPUT RELATED TO THE TRANSPORTATION INITIATIVES TASK FORCE

Chair Burkholder said Councilor Hosticka is the Council’s representative to this group, and that Councilor Monroe has attended as well. He asked for discussion regarding any wishes for the work of this committee. He said his hopes were that the group would bring a strategically focused list of achievable ideas that everyone could buy into. He also wanted to ensure that they coordinated closely with Metro’s policies and the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP). Councilor Monroe concurred. He felt a group of business people and citizen leaders proposing a set of transportation priorities and a funding mechanism to meet those priorities might have a better chance of public acceptance, understanding that Metro, at some point, would have to take action to help implement their recommendations. He felt it was very important to let the group do their work with a limited amount of input from electeds. Councilor Hosticka felt the only possible danger was that the group would come up with a different project list of regional importance than JPACT or the Transportation Committee. He added he had never been a fan of earmarking revenues. Councilor Monroe remarked that Washington County had a great deal of success in getting higher property taxes toward certain earmarked projects. Mr. Cotugno commented that while the group needed to set a strategic direction, it did not necessarily have to be the same as the MTIP because there are other things called for in the broad set of RTP needs. Councilor Hosticka noted that it was interesting that the apparent division between suburban areas who were more automobile oriented large-scale projects, and inner city areas that emphasize more alternative, non-auto based transportation issues kept coming up in the discussions. He wanted to be sure the committee reflected both of those. Chair Burkholder encouraged the committee to educate themselves on the value of Transit Oriented Development (TODs), Transportation Demand Management (TDM), Transportation Management Areas (TMAs) and other planning needs as well as projects. He said the next Task Force meeting would be September 10^th and announced that September is Bike Commute Challenge Month.

4.  MTIP UPDATE

Mike Hoglund, Planning Department, provided the committee with an update on the FY 04-07 MTIP process (see Region 2040 Implementation Program 2004-07 MTIP Update Preliminary Draft included in the agenda packet with the permanent record of this meeting). He reviewed the schedule from page 4 of the document and the solicitation packet summary on page 3. He suggested a possible third option could be, since they had the financial capacity brought through the Oregon Transportation Investment Act (OTIA), that they might be able to borrow against that capacity in the meantime if projects that could not get into the program were brought to JPACT for approval if they met the test of program objectives. He said he was working on concise language to submit. He reviewed Regional Match criteria from page 6 in the packet. He said match and criteria issues overlapped somewhat but they had tried to keep them separated. Regarding the Enhance Walking, Biking and Use of Transit goal on page 10, Councilor Burkholder said he would like to change the transfer of bike lanes to a “parallel facility in reasonable proximity” to “parallel facility with equivalent access” as used by the state for a measure. Mr. Hoglund pointed out the bonus system for meeting green streets objectives and commented that they had not had time to talk to the freight community to see if the green streets piece would work there, but said he hoped to before the JPACT meeting. He noted that the document did not contain the local public involvement checklist yet. Chair Burkholder asked about any response from local partners. Mr. Hoglund said they had been pretty positive.

4A  CITIZEN COMMUNICATION

John Hempler, 11939 NE Davis, was interested in the Ped to MAX project and asked for information regarding any such projects. He also commented that he had noticed a lack of decent pedestrian walkways on Highway 99E and 99W and Highway 26. He also noted that the brush clearing had ceased along McLoughlin Blvd. Chair Burkholder offered staff response regarding his questions. He explained that the cost of maintaining roads is an ongoing problem due to lack of funding. He suggested contacting the State Highway Department as a first step they are very responsive to citizen requests. He noted a number of the roads are already on the list of places where they would like to start putting more money to make transit more accessible and pedestrian friendly.

ADJOURN

There being no further business to come before the Transportation Committee, Chair Burkholder adjourned the meeting at 11:41 a.m.

Prepared by

Cheryl Grant

Council Assistant

Attachments to the Public Record for the

Transportation Committees Meeting of September 5, 2002

Testimony Cards:

None.