MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, July 7, 1998

Metro Council Chamber

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

Members Absent:  Ed Washington

Others Present:    Rod Monroe

Vice Chair McLain called the meeting to order at 3:35 PM. She said Chair Washington had a family emergency and would be unable to attend.

1.  INTRODUCTIONS

None.

2.  CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF JUNE 23, 1998

3.  BRIEFING ON SOUTH/NORTH LOCALLY PREFERRED STRATEGY (LPS)

Richard Brandman, South/North Project Director, Metro Transportation Department, introduced this and the next agenda item, both about the South/North Light Rail. Although the LPS and the Land-Use Final Order (LUFO) are closely related, he made it clear that they would require two separate.

Mr. Brandman said the LPS is federal nomenclature for the alignment, the route, and the terminus for the South/North Project that will be incorporated into the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The LUFO is required by a 1996 state statute that consolidates the land-use decision-making for this project at Metro, rather than at each of the local governments through which the project would pass. The LUFO is a final order for land uses on the same project as that addressed in the LPS, but it has its own nuances and complexities.

The LPS is shown as Exhibit A of the meeting record. (One version is included in the meeting packet; a more recent and complete version is attached to the meeting record.) The LPS is the same recommendation discussed at the Transportation Planning Committee meeting on June 23, 1998. (The discussion of these recommendations is summarized in the minutes for June 23, 1998.) These recommendations have also been adopted by the Portland City Council, the Milwaukie City Council, the Clackamas County Commission, and the Tri-Met board. It was recently recommended unanimously by the Technical Policy Advisory Committee (TPAC) and will go to the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT) on Thursday, July 9, 1998. Briefly, the recommendations are for the full alignment to run from Oregon City to Vancouver, but built in three phases, or Interim Operating Segments (IOSs). (Exhibit A describes all three IOSs.)

Councilor Kvistad said an extension to Expo has been discussed in the past. He said he recognizes that this piece is still in IOS 3. He asked what the cost for just this part would be. Mr. Brandman said he has those figures but not with him; they are in the EIS. Councilor Kvistad reiterated his strong support for including the extension to Expo segment in IOS 2, in the event that IOS 3 does not receive funding.

Mr. Brandman noted that the proposed light rail to the airport would offer another possibility for extending into Clark County, in addition to going along I-5. He reiterated the specific alignments, which make up the body of the recommendations, and summarized the reasons behind the choices that were made. For example, the decision to run the line on the north side of the Clackamas Town Center rather than on the south side was based on lower cost and higher ridership. The decision to run the line along Highway 224 was based on community preference.

Councilor Monroe asked about ridership differences between the alignment on Highway 224 and that on Railroad Avenue. Mr. Brandman said an alignment along Railroad Avenue would have had a slightly larger ridership, but the neighborhood vehemently opposed it. For one thing, a number of homes would have had to be moved. Councilor Monroe suggested that that alignment might bypass too many people. Mr. Brandman said that on the other hand, the light rail would serve an industrial park that employs four or five thousand people. Mr. Brandman said that not only the community but the employees of the industrial park supported a station at Freeman Way and Highway 224.

Vice Chair McLain asked Mr. Brandman to further explain the decision to go along the north side of the Clackamas Town Center. Mr. Brandman said the Town Center has new owners, and they strongly support light rail’s coming to the center. He said the new owners are from Chicago, and they understand the relationship of a major transit project to a place like the Town Center. They also support the goals of 2040. They have come up with a plan of their own to start implementing 2040 at the Town Center. It creates a “main street” on Monterey Boulevard with light rail running down the middle of the boulevard. The plan would create a real main street, with homes above shops, structured parking on the south side of the Town Center, and three office buildings immediately adjacent to the town center on the site that would no longer required for parking.

Councilor Monroe asked if the light rail would run close enough to the Town Center to allow employees to use it. Mr. Brandman said the Town Center would actually move closer to the light rail, with construction of movie theaters on that side.

Councilor Monroe asked where the rail would cross I-205 to access Kaiser Hospital and New Hope Church. Mr. Brandman said this alignment has the rail stopping at the Town Center and not going to the New Hope Church. The decision was purely financial, although Clackamas County would still like the light rail to go that far and might still be working on a way to fund that.

Councilor Monroe suggested that the route chosen to go to Oregon City would be a factor in how much money would be available. He said if you go via McLoughlin, then going across I-205 might be more desirable than if the route must turn south to Oregon City there. Mr. Brandman said all of the ways to get from the Town Center to Oregon City will be studied.

Councilor Kvistad asked if the Promenade people had been consulted about their concerns. Mr. Brandman said yes. The Promenade has not expressed interest in having the light rail go there, and light rail would not serve them nearly as well as it would serve the Town Center.

Mr. Brandman said only one alignment had been considered, and that is the one being recommended. Likewise, only one alignment had been considered along McLoughlin Boulevard. That alignment leaves all the trees on McLoughlin Boulevard. As to whether to cross the Willamette at Ross Island or Caruthers, the Caruthers crossing was enthusiastically supported by the public. The Ross Island crossing was not a bad alignment, but the Steering Committee decided in favor of Caruthers 1) because of the public support for Caruthers, and 2) because there are other ways to serve North Macadam with transit other than light rail, such as with the central city street cars currently being considered by the City of Portland.

Mr. Brandman said that downtown, the recommendation is to build the full downtown mall, from Portland State University to Union Station. Going across the Steel Bridge, the tracks will run east of I-5. The rationale for avoiding the west side of the freeway, next to the Blazer facility, avoids having the garage exit directly across from the tracks. Also, you cannot run an efficient train with 20,000 people pouring out of the facility and possibly trying to cross the tracks after an event, at the same time the garage is trying to empty and Tri-Met is trying to run extra trains to accommodate the crowd. Also, the Eliot Neighborhood strongly supports an alignment on the east side of the freeway, to be closer to their neighborhood. The Lloyd District Transportation Management Association also strongly supports the east side of I-5 alignment, to tie all the development along Broadway and Weidler into light rail.

Councilor Kvistad asked if the tracks would then cut underneath the interchange at the Rose Garden and go north past the hospital. Mr. Brandman said that is correct.

Councilor Monroe asked if the Rose Garden management supports the decision. Mr. Brandman said yes¾strongly. The management strongly supports light rail itself. The facility was purposely located in anticipation of the confluence of the east/west and south/north light rail. It was also built with only a couple thousand parking spaces for 20,000 seats in anticipation of the south/north light rail. But management also wants the actual tracks to run east of the facility to avoid the conflicts with fans and the garages.

Council Monroe asked how well this alignment would serve Emanuel Hospital. Mr. Brandman said that is the next stop. The hospital will be served by the Russell Street station, directly south of the hospital. The Steering Committee believed that a station on Russell Street would serve the hospital well while also serving the Eliot Neighborhood. Much of the ridership to the hospital will be employees, not just patients. The hospital would have liked to have a station right at its front door, but that would have required a completely different alignment.

Councilor Monroe asked about an abbreviated downtown alignment, freeing up more money to go farther north in phase I. He asked why the decision was made to go full-length downtown instead.

Mr. Brandman said 1) 11,000 transit trips would need to transfer if the alignment goes only half way; and 2) the downtown community strongly supports the full-mall alignment for many reasons. One reason is land-use. The north mall represents a major opportunity for redevelopment. Another is the inconvenience during construction. The downtown has been through three major construction projects in the past 20 years. The downtown would rather have the entire mall torn apart only once rather than once to do the half-mall alignment and again in 10 years to finish the full-mall alignment. A third is that the airport light rail adds new considerations. That light rail would bring more trains downtown. The half mall was never meant to be a permanent solution. All those factors went into deciding in favor of an initial full-mall alignment.

Councilor Monroe asked if separate track for South/North would run across the steel bridge. Mr. Brandman said no. But, he said, the South/North track will peel off at Union Station instead of going downtown. This means that only the Steel Bridge poses a constraint rather than all along First Avenue.

Councilor Monroe asked about the Union Station connection. He said he thought at one time a connection farther from Union Station but less expensive had been suggested. Mr. Brandman said that two years ago, the Glisan option was significantly less expensive than the Irving Street option, but refinements made since then have reduced the cost difference considerably. Also, the new alignment, which would run beside an existing railroad track, would allow trains to run at a higher speeds than if it ran on an ordinary street. The new design puts the station on Irving Street right across from Union Station, between it and the Greyhound Station. This makes for a fantastic intermodal connection.

Mr. Brandman said that the train, after leaving Russell Street, would follow along I-5 to a station at Skidmore to serve the Kaiser Clinics, and then to a station at Killingsworth to serve a “main street” there. A pedestrian overcrossing at Killingsworth offers potential for development right on the overcrossing. The alignment would then cross over and leave I-5 somewhere between Killingsworth and Lombard, at a point yet to be decided.

Finally, the track would go from Kenton to Vancouver and terminate at Clark College. The financing for the final segment is less certain than that for the first two segments. But this recommendation is being considered today by the Regional Transportation Council in Clark County, where it is expected to pass, and it is favored by the mayor of Vancouver. It has already been adopted into their regional transportation plan.

Mr. Brandman said these recommendations will go to JPACT Thursday morning, then to this committee for action on July 21 and, assuming approval, to the full Council on July 23.

Councilor Kvistad said he was concerned about not connecting Expo in the first phase. He said that other major cities with light rail, such as Chicago and Ontario, have connected major public facilities by transit links. He said he is concerned that Metro is spending money to upgrade Expo but not ensuring that transit runs there. He said if the financing to Clark County fell through, it would be a big mistake to not have funded this piece. He said Metro already owns the property near Expo, and Expo should be tied directly to the Convention Center and the Rose Garden.

Mr. Brandman said the issue is finances. Councilor Kvistad said if money can be found to build the full mall alignment downtown, then money should be found to do this, also. Councilor McLain said she is certain this same issue will come up at JPACT on Thursday. She asked for a summary of the cost of extending light rail to Expo, so conversations about this issue could be held with that committee and others.

Aleta Woodruff, MCCI, 2143 NE 95th Place, Portland, addressed the committee. She said that page 1 of Exhibit A, defines the acronym “IOS” as “Initial Operating Segment” and later, the maps define it as “interim operating segment. She asked for clarification. Mr. Brandman said the definition should be “interim” in both cases.

4.  BRIEFING ON SOUTH/NORTH LAND USE FINAL ORDER (LUFO)

Vice Chair McLain introduced this agenda item by referring to a packet (attached to the meeting record), explaining provisions of a 1996 Oregon Laws Chapter 12, House Bill 3478, direct Tri-Met to submit an application to the Metro Council after Tri-Met has received recommendations from the LUFO hearing committee. State law also requires that Metro have a public hearing at a meeting of the full Council on this, not the Transportation Planning Committee. That hearing will be on July 23. On July 21, the Transportation Planning Committee will have an opportunity to discuss the LUFO after it has had a chance to review the document. The purpose of the discussion today is to provide information so that the committee can ask questions and receive background on the LUFO process.

Leon Skiles, Manager, High-Capacity Transit, and Mark Greenfield, an attorney who has been working with Metro on the process, presented the briefing. Mr. Skiles directed the committee’s attention to Tri-Met’s application, which was distributed as a hand-out during the meeting. (It is attached to the meeting record.) This application for a LUFO was approved unanimously by the Tri-Met Board of Directors on June 21. The Metro Council is scheduled to act on July 23, following a public hearing. If the Council does not concur with the Tri-Met board, the application can be sent back to the board for amendment and reviewed again by the Steering Committee. By state law, the Metro council cannot unilaterally amend, then adopt the LUFO. The Council and the Board must concur.

Councilor Kvistad said the Council has generally agreed with the board on this. He did not foresee any problems.

Mr. Skiles walked the committee through the document, explaining the state law and the approval process. He pointed out that the heart of the LUFO are the maps, which compose appendix A. The maps show the areas in which the light rail and ancillary facilities can be built. As long as the facility is built within those areas, the permitting process can go forward and the project can be built. If preliminary design or engineering suggests we need to build outside of the areas marked on the maps, the plans must go back to the Tri-Met board and the Metro Council to obtain approval to amend those maps.

Page 2 provides verbal descriptions, by segment, of the locally preferred alternative. Page 8 describes applicable land use criteria, adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission in 1996, based on recommendations by the Metro Council. The top of page 9 presents procedural criteria, substantive criteria (e.g., water quality, environmental impacts) and alignment-specific criteria. These criteria consolidate all criteria and requirements that would have applied to the light rail project had it been built without the enabling legislation.

Councilor Kvistad asked why Metro was not listed as one of the jurisdictions in the procedural criteria. Mr. Skiles said it is not listed there because Metro is the adopting body.

Mr. Skiles said some of the plans had specific places where the alignment would be, such as the Albina Plan in North Portland. Those are listed. Those criteria are important in that they regulate the findings that support the adoption of the LUFO. The LUFO fits with the LPS and the process used to adopt that.

On page 10, section E, are interpretations of terms. These are important, in light of the fact that state law requires the maps to identify the boundaries within which the light-rail components can occur. Those components include such items as the route (tracks); the stations, platforms, transit centers, park and ride lots, maintenance facilities; and highway improvements that are associated with the light rail. Councilor McLain asked what a “kiss and ride” lot is. Mr. Skiles said that is a term for a “drop-off” area.

Mr. Skiles called the committee’s attention to Attachment A, the maps. There are three sets of maps that all depict the same thing but in different ways. The first set shows the boundaries by segment, the second shows more detail of complicated areas; the third shows considerable detail of the entire alignment, beginning at the south end of the corridor and continuing to the top.

At the end of the document are the recommendations of the Steering Committees and of the Oregon Department of Transportation, as required by law. Mr. Skiles then explained how the maps relate to the LPS, using one map as an example. He said where uncertainties exist as to precise alignments, the boundaries shown on the map include the entire area of possibility. Where no uncertainty exists, the boundary shown more precisely. Transit centers are shown as large areas, not because there is uncertainty as to where they will be build, but because the maps must indicate the entire area that will be built.

As has been explained, as long as the building remains within the boundaries shown on the maps, the permitting process can go forward and be in compliance with state law. If something must be built outside of those boundaries, that can be done but only after going back to the Tri-Met board and to the Metro Council for concurrence to modify the maps to reflect those changes.

Councilor McLain said she understood there had been two possible locations for the maintenance facility. Mr. Skiles said one of the possibilities conflicted with a railroad right-of-way, so the decision was made to locate maintenance on Holgate, at the site of the Tri-Met’s current bus maintenance facility.

Councilor Monroe asked if the station shown on Lafayette was near the Tri-Met headquarters and the Fred Meyer warehouse. Mr. Skiles said yes, and an existing pedestrian connection in that vicinity would be improved.

Mr. Skiles pointed out the criteria and findings for the LUFO and the EIS, using a draft of the McLoughlin Boulevard as an example. (The text of this example is attached to the meeting record.) He made it clear that this was only a draft, and the final version could look different.

5.  BRIEFING ON SOUTH WILLAMETTE RIVER CROSSING STUDY

Chris Deffebach, Senior Transportation Planner, summarized the status of the South Willamette Crossing study using overhead transparencies. (Copies of the transparencies are attached to the meeting record.)

Ms. Deffebach said this study, which evaluates several crossing options between the Ross Island Bridge and I-205 bridge, is nearing completion. The purpose of the briefing today was to remind the committee of the purpose of the study and what the options and process has been, and to briefly present preliminary findings.

The study was undertaken because the current bridges cannot handle predicted growth in demand along the river from the Ross Island Bridge to I-205 bridge. The Sellwood Bridge needs to be repaired or replaced. It also has inadequate bicycle and pedestrian capacity. Affected jurisdictions--Lake Oswego, the City of Portland, and Multnomah County--do not agree on how demand should be handled. Metro’s role is to develop a long-term strategy for this area to include in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). It must also work with the different jurisdictions to try to facilitate agreement on what the strategy should be. Funding requests will also come through Metro.

Ms. Deffebach presented her summary, as shown in the overhead transparencies. Briefly, she said that replacing the Sellwood Bridge would be less expensive than bringing the existing one up to current standards. One question has been, will doubling the size of the bridge from two to four lanes double traffic volumes? Forecasts indicate it will not double traffic, but increase it by only about 15%.

Ms. Deffebach said that none of the estimates include improvements that might be needed on related facilities or to provide other means of managing demand. Staff is currently trying to identify those.

Regarding the Ross Island Crossing improvement, forecasts indicated that improvements would not have the kind of impact on travel demand staff had hoped. A new Ross Island crossing would likely attract new trips from bridges other than the Sellwood Bridge, but it would not connect more directly with I-405.

Councilor Kvistad asked whether, considering everything, replacing the Sellwood Bridge with a four-lane enhanced span is likely to be the best investment. Ms. Deffebach said it that option affects the infrastructure the least overall and addresses the immediate problem without creating more demand. But it does not serve as many people.

Councilor McLain said that as she understands it, one solution or one bridge cannot solve all the problems. She asked what the strategy for working this information through the RTP would be. She said that this study does not seem to be key to an overall regional strategy.

Mike Hoglund, Manager, Regional Transportation Planning, said the plan is to come up with something for this area, then meld that into the RTP process, and see how these issues relate to other issues in the region. For example, the study revealed information contrary to what perception might indicate in the Lake Oswego area--i.e., it indicated that a bridge could provide better mobility and accessibility in the area. But if the community does not support that, it might fall off the list.

Councilor McLain asked where this study fits with the regional priorities.

Ms. Deffebach said that this study determines priorities within the specified stretch of the river, and the RTP determines how that priority fits in the larger picture. The Sellwood Bridge has been on a “committed” list, but just how it fits with other priorities has yet to be decided.

Councilor Kvistad said this has been discussed for the past five years. He said he had expected that improvements to the Ross Island Bridge would be the best alternative, and he was surprised the study did not support that.

Councilor McLain, referring to one of the conclusions that repairing the Sellwood Bridge is “not a bargain,” she asked what is meant by a bargain. She suggested that what might not be a bargain from an economic perspective might be a bargain from another perspective, such as promoting a regional design type. She said she needs to know more about how this study fits in with regional goals.

Mr. Hoglund said the evaluation criteria include how this will fit with the 2040 growth concept, specifically town centers and regional centers. A judgment will need to be made as to how the options fit with that. He said the quantitative measures are quite complex and difficult to interpret. He said a final report will be forthcoming, and it will present quantitative and qualitative measures. Regarding priorities, he said the strategic RTP will be put together in five-year components. The first five years lack money. A number of projects will need to be phased. To choose critical pieces, conversations will need to be held with the public and with public officials. He speculated that in this stretch of the river, something will need to be done with the Ross Island ramps and some agreement will need to be made on the Sellwood Bridge. Also, something upriver for the long-term might need to be chosen, even though it might not be built for 20 or 30 years. Mr. Hoglund said the final report on this study should be finished in the next couple of months.

6.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

There being no further business before the Committee, Chair Washington adjourned the meeting at 5:10 PM.

Prepared by,

Pat Emmerson

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE MEETING OF JULY 7, 1998

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