MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, December 1, 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 5:40 PM and welcomed everyone to the Transportation Public Hearing. He said the purpose of the public hearing is to listen to the public’s ideas on the future of transportation in the Portland region, particularly in the south-north corridor. He explained the procedure for testifying.

1.  INTRODUCTIONS

Chair Washington postponed Agenda Item #2, Consideration of the Minutes, until after the public hearing.

Chair Washington introduced the committee and guests at the dais: Bob Stacey, Tri-met; and Dave Lohman, Port of Portland. He said Councilor McLain would arrive shortly but was held up in traffic.

Councilor Kvistad said this was the first opportunity aside from a meeting of the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT), to discuss the failure of the light rail ballot measure. He suggested a couple of options for consideration and discussion: 1) a free transit system funded by regional employers; 2) east-side light-rail alignment with a possible downtown extension, so that the region does not walk away from the three-quarters of a billion dollars available to build a basic transit system; and 3) a deregulated transit system that allows for multiple options.

David Lohman, Port of Portland, said the question is how to gain control of the region’s transportation destiny--which among the many options to pursue. He said the Port of Portland had struggled with how to maintain good access to the airport and concluded that a light rail line from Gateway Transit Center to the airport was the best alternative. He said he was anxious to hear other people’s ideas.

Chair Washington introduced Rod Park, Metro Councilor-elect, and thanked him for attending. He said the purpose of the hearing was to listen. When light rail did not pass, he received a number of calls from people with options. He said Metro did not have a Plan B, so the goal was gather suggestions and investigate possibilities. Light rail was just one small part of the transportation plan. He directed the public’s attention to a flyer that lists other meetings on this issue. (A copy of the flyer is attached to the meeting record.)

Mike Burton, Metro Executive Officer, spoke about where Metro has been on this issue and on Metro’s overall mission regarding transportation. He said Metro was not the transit authority; that was Tri-Met’s job. He said Metro was responsible for coordinating and planning a regional transportation system in its federal designation as a metropolitan planning organization (MPO). It also works with the state on the state-mandated regional transportation plan. Further, Metro’s locally approved charter gives it responsibility for regional transportation planning.

He said Metro’s concern was coordinating the inter-modal movement of people and freight as they relate to efficient land-use planning. He emphasized the strong connection between transportation planning and land-use planning. He said Metro responded positively to Tri-Met’s proposed the south-north light rail line because it fit with Metro’s 2040 vision. He emphasized that Metro was not an economic development agency; it simply addressed the growth and tried to manage it as well as possible. The south-north option was ultimately selected to deal with transportation in a particular quarter, but no two areas within the region function independently.

He said the transportation plan for the southern transit corridor had been developed over seven years after studying a number of alternatives. Light rail had been selected as the best way to meet the needs in that corridor. With the recent defeat of that plan, other options need to be re-examined.

Mr. Burton said Metro’s role is to put together a regional transportation plan, then implement that plan through the STP, which allocates federal and state dollars to listed projects. He said the program elements that have been requested total $331 million worth of proposals, but only $75 million is available. He noted that this is not a pool of money to be spent however Metro chooses; rather the federal government puts restrictions on the funding that prevents funds set aside for certain categories of projects to be spent on other categories of projects. He expressed concern over the lack of a state strategy for transportation and over the lack of funding.

He said he had spent some time in the Los Angeles area recently and also in Seattle. He said that although he normally cautions against comparing one area directly with another, he does think there is value in seeing what other areas have done and applying what is relevant. He said the problem in the Portland area is not that we do not know what to do nor that we lack a plan. It is partly because we lack the resources to do the things we would like to do outside of promoting light rail. He said Seattle and Los Angeles recently enjoyed the designation of being two of the most congested cities in the United States, yet they are completely different. Seattle is in a peninsula with geographic constraints. Seattle has extensive High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes and reversible express lanes, yet congestion remains a problem. In the last election, voters approved a $2.9 billion transportation initiative that will bond that money to build everything from state and local highways to ferries to rail to farm-to-market roads. In addition, King and Pierce Counties in the Seattle area recently approved $3.4 billion investment to do light rail and transit in the Seattle area of King County. That’s a total of $6.3 billion reinvested in transportation in Washington. This area cannot come close to that, yet the Seattle area will remain congested.

Los Angeles is a different situation. The average freeway width in that area is eight lanes. The total amount of land taken up just in the Los Angeles area is about 24,000 acres. More land is in freeways than in the expansion proposals for the urban growth boundary in the metropolitan area. But the land down there is not worth much. The water is gone from Mona Lake in the Owens Valley. But the system works well if you have nothing else to do with your land. But you cannot apply that system here because it won’t work. The land and geography are different.

He said he understands that for both Tri-Met and the Port of Portland, moving freight is important. Options being studied there include moving freight at different times of the day, congestion pricing, and other strategies.

Mr. Burton displayed a paper copy of the components of the regional transportation plan’s system--maps, regional street designs, regional motor vehicle system, the public transportation system, the regional freight system, the regional bicycle system, and the regional pedestrian system. He said all these are related to each other. All of these must have equal emphasis and should be kept in mind as we proceed. He noted that Andrew Cotugno, Metro’s Transportation Director, and Richard Brandman, Assistant, and staff were present and available to answer questions.

Councilor McLain said she felt good about being caught in traffic coming to this meeting. She said it was appropriate, because traffic congestion is not the exception; it is a rule. This is a problem we need to solve. We have a vision to try to carry out. We have a complete system that needs infrastructure dollars. It is important to hear what those present have to say about those issues.

Chair Washington opened the public hearing at 5:40 PM.

3.  PUBLIC HEARING: SOUTH NORTH CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION NEEDS¾WHAT NEXT?

Nohad Toulan, Dean of the College of Urban and Public Affairs, Portland State University (PSU), said he represented Portland State University (PSU) and himself at the public hearing. He read from written testimony of PSU’s official position supporting the south/north light rail. (A copy of Dr. Toulan’s testimony is included in the meeting record.)

Jim Worthington, 3232 SE 153rd Road, Portland, OR, 97236, said he has been in England, Scotland, and Ireland recently. He said when he returned from overseas, he saw a notice in the newspaper inviting the public to help with ideas on how to “sell” the south/north light rail. He said he wondered what part of “no” these people do not understand. He noted that Mr. Lohman had said we need to get our transportation system under control. He wondered who “we” was--the officials or the voters. He said the voters spoke. In his view, it is “we the people,” and not “we the officials.” He said there are other forms of transportation, for example, HOV lanes, bus lanes, water taxis. He said in Dublin on certain main streets, particular lanes are designated as bus lanes. He said he had not seen that done in the United States. He also said in the British Isles double-decker buses are commonly used. He thought that ought to be investigated by Tri-Met. He also said that in San Diego, the light rail is used at night for freight. He thought that should be considered here. He said light rail is in the wrong place. He said the I-205 corridor was originally planned to have light rail. He thought that that some people had voted against the south/north light rail because it was not planned for that corridor. He said the Glen Jackson Bridge was designed to carry light rail. He thought the reason some people in Vancouver voted against light rail was because it had been planned to go to the wrong place in Vancouver. He said if it does need to go where it does, millions of dollars could be saved by running shuttles or water taxis across the river and keeping the line on the east side.

The following seven testifiers represent organizations that are members of the Coalition for a Livable Future.

Dick Schouten, Citizens for Sensible Transportation, 1220 SW Morrison #535, Portland, OR, 97205, said he has lived in Beaverton for a number of years and is involved in his community and in Washington County. He said he has walked parts or all of four precincts in Beaverton, and most of the people who opposed light rail said it was due to the expense. He said he did not get the impression that people strongly opposed light rail, but those who opposed it most often cited the cost and the number of local ballot measures that involved money. He said particularly in southern Beaverton he heard that people miss express bus service and it now took longer to commute to downtown than before the westside light rail opened. He said some people said because they do not work or live in that transit corridor, they would not use it and therefore were not interested. He said he did not hear support for extensive freeways or major arterials. He said he got a lot of positive feedback, and he thinks people want better bus service, more frequent bus runs to the MAX stops. In areas outside of the immediate MAX-line area, they want some express buses back. One of the issues to look at is improved connectivity with arterials and collective streets, using extensive public input. He commended the committee on its plans to hold public hearings throughout the region.

Chris Hagerbaumer, Air and Transportation Program Director, Oregon Environmental Council, 520 SW 6th #940, Portland, OR, 97205, said she also represented the Coalition for a Livable Future. She said there is no “silver bullet,” but she and the other people with her support continuing to work for light rail and other transportation alternatives in the community. She said the region needs to use its existing infrastructure more efficiently, and she recommended pursuing more transportation-demand management strategies, because those will help reduce and reshape demand for the transportation system. She said there are many more strategies than she had time to mention, but they would include such successful measures as carpooling and vanpooling, employer-based commute option programs, telecommuting, parking management, and pricing strategies. These measures are flexible and can be altered to meet the changing conditions and requirements of the facility throughout its life. Perhaps what is most important, the price needs to be right. Basic economics teaches that when something is taxed, there is less of it; when it is subsidized, there is more of it. She said roads and driving are subsidized in this region and throughout the state. In other words, the fees that drivers pay--the gas tax, the weight and mile tax and the registration fee--do not fully cover the cost of building and maintaining the region’s roads, nor do they cover such services as traffic cops or emergency response. On top of that, there are other costs of driving, such as air pollution and water pollution, that are quite large and are born by society as a whole. There are a number of strategies that would actually reduce the subsidy for driving, such as congestion pricing that Metro is looking at. The full spectrum of transportation demand strategies need to be examined and the existing infrastructure needs to be used more efficiently.

Lynn Peterson, 1000 Friends of Oregon, 534 SW 3rd, Portland, OR 97204, read from her written testimony, a copy of which is included in the meeting record. Her testimony urged Metro to continue to consider building the south/north light rail, even if it’s just a portion of the originally proposed line.

Catherine Ciarlo, Executive Director, Bicycle Transportation Alliance (BTA), PO Box 9072, Portland, OR 97207, said the BTA is a bicycle advocacy organization. With about 1200 members, the BTA advocates making biking safer and more convenient in the metro area, improving bicycle accessibility with bicycle facilities, and promoting a mixture of transportation modes and options. The BTA encourages the Council to invest the region’s limited transportation money in ways that give people transportation choices. This means bicycle and pedestrian improvements, but it also means transit improvements and investing in a multi-modal transportation system, not just widening roads and building more freeways. Bikes work great with transit, and this kind of mixed use accessibility gives people options. Bicycles are good for communities, and the kind of community that she has heard people speak about today is a community that is well served by people spending less time in cars and more time on bicycles for clean air, livability, and transportation choice.

Alan Hipolito, Urban League of Portland, 50 North Russell, Portland, OR 97217, said the Urban League of Portland is a founding member of the Coalition for a Livable Future. They have been partners with each other and with Metro as they work to incorporate social justice and traditional civil rights concerns with regional growth planning. The committee will hear a good deal of testimony today about future transportation planning and its potential impacts on the region’s livability. He urged the committee to heed the testimony of his fellow coalition members about light rail’s continued viability. He spoke specifically about North and Northeast Portland and the impacts of the committee’s light rail decisions on those communities. Unlike other regions, Portland is not experiencing a dramatic cycle of disinvestment in its communities of color. Portland’s regional planning has served to direct investment into North and Northeast Portland, and for that everyone should be proud. However, questions linger as to whether that investment will benefit the community’s long-term residents or whether it will serve the needs of the new and changing population. In short, will the future of Northeast Portland hold revitalization or gentrification? Metro’s transportation planning and its resulting implementation will direct further resources into North and Northeast Portland. The character of that planning, and especially the opportunities posed by light rail planning, allow the community to benefit from these resources, helping to keep the community affordable to its longtime residents. These benefits include encouraging entrepreneurial opportunities connected with light rail construction and subsequent transit oriented development. These opportunities do not exist when new freeways are built or existing ones widened. He urged the committee to maintain its focus on developing a forward-looking regional transportation system, including a continued commitment to light rail. Finally, he urged the committee to dismiss those who would be foolish enough to assert that light rail will not work simply because the cities in the United States once used rails, as though rail were some dinosaur without continued viability. The ideas of the past should not be ignored in the planning for this region’s transportation future.

Tasha Harmon, Community Development Network, 2637 NE Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Portland, OR 97212, said she was here to support what her colleagues have said and to speak a little more about whom different kinds of transit modes serve. It is crucial in building a viable transportation system for the future of this region to look at which people are not well served now by the existing transportation system. Basically, the people who are not served well are those who do not have access to automobiles: mostly old people, kids, disabled people, and poor people. It is also important to look at where transportation investments get focused. A lot of transportation efforts have focused on outlying communities or on the westside downtown. They had hoped that light rail on the east side of the river would finally focus some solid, fixed transportation systems so that the needed land use and redevelopment work can be done on the east side in those neighborhoods that have been ignored by investment. Now it looks like that will not happen, unless the region recommits itself to some kind of focus on the transit needs of those people who do not have access to automobiles and those neighborhoods on the east side of the river that desperately need access to the westside light rail line to get to the jobs that are now booming in Washington County. She urged the committee to keep looking at issues of diversity of modes and issues of how the transportation investment decisions that will be made as a region will affect the landuse plans that have been carefully crafted for the redevelopment of existing communities.

Mike Houck, Portland Audubon Society, 5151 NW Cornell, Portland, OR 97210, said the Audubon Society of Portland is another founding member of the Coalition for a Livable Future. He said the Coalition understands the relationship of a good multi-modal transportation system to affordable housing and overall quality of life issues in the region. That is why they are at the hearing as a panel showing support for one another, even though some of them work in other arenas. He said the Coalition has 8,000 members in the Portland metropolitan region, and their board of directors voted to support the light-rail bond measure. Their support for light rail and a multi-modal transportation plan continues to be unwavering. He said the support has been long-standing. He recalled walking the potential light rail alignment in the snow about 10 years ago with Richard Brandman of the Metro Transportation Department.

He said while the mission of the Audubon Society tends to focus on fish and wildlife habitat, it understands clearly the importance of alternative modes of transportation to reduce negative environmental impacts, not the least of which is water quality. He said in the next few years Metro, the City of Portland, and the region will need to respond to the recent listing of steelhead in the Willamette River. More listings will come. There is absolutely no question about the negative impact on urban waterways of building more roadways. Forty percent of all urban stormwater runoff, both in volume and in quantity of polluted water, very seriously impact tributaries to the Willamette River and the river itself. He said the coalition remains staunch in its support for a multi-modal regional transportation plan and hopes the committee will not interpret the vote on light rail as a referendum against a multi-modal regional transportation plan nor light rail. There are many reasons folks may have chosen this time around to vote against light rail. Using the greenspaces issue as an example, he said that the struggle to maintain greenspaces has seen many defeats from as early as the homestead days. But no one gave up, and the issue eventually found support. He said that is what needs to happen with light rail.

Terry Parker, 1527 NE 65th Ave., Portland, OR said the south/north line should not be on the transit mall or not built at all. South/north lost because the design was flawed. He said the focus of the east/west line, to reduce congestion, was lost in the south/north planning effort. He said it was viewed instead as a development strategy. In addition to its high cost, collusion with big business downtown put it in the mall and made end-to-end connections untimely. Without a connection across the Columbia, this line is merely a more expensive replacement for buses. The south corridor going to Clackamas Town Center via the McLoughlin corridor was viewed as a subsidy to developers. Development and growth, including commercial growth, must pay for itself. Although expanding light rail still has a future in Portland, it is time to nail the coffin shut on south/north and move on with some fresh and more economical ideas. Take the emphasis off downtown and make transit work for the rest of the city by connecting center express bus service with job centers.

The first step would be using the shopping centers as hubs, with local express buses as feeders. Mr. Parker said that in 1978, before the House Transportation Committee, he suggested light rail from Gateway to the airport. Now it is happening, 20 years later and with 100% local funding. It’s time to consider an I-205 extension to continue the east-side grid to Lents or the Clackamas Town Center. This would help relieve overcrowding on the 82nd Avenue bus line as well as help support the Lents urban renewal district. Alternative, put in a Brooklyn extension and continue the MAX trains from the airport along SW 1st Avenue, cross the Willamette River on the Hawthorne Bridge past OMSI, onto the south end of Brooklyn Yard, where a multi-story park-and-ride could be constructed amenable to being converted to an office building if the rails were extended farther to the south. For now, stay out of Milwaukie--that’s a hotbox.

Then look at commuter rail. Not just from Wilsonville to Beaverton, but from Vancouver, stopping at Union Station and then going through to the transit center at the south end of Brooklyn Yards. Stop creating congestion by reducing motor vehicle lanes and establishing bus stops in travel lanes on our city streets. This only forces traffic into neighborhoods. There is a tax equity problem with both congestion pricing and HOV lanes, so leave them both out of the plan if they depend on the gas tax.

Tax equity is also an issue with bicycles. Place a moratorium on all bicycle projects until a tax structure on bicycles is in place that equals taxes paid by other vehicles. Adult bicyclists, who on the average can well afford the tax, are probably the only group in Oregon of that stature that have dedicated facilities and make no direct payment to use them. Any politician who dares discuss bicycle taxes is diligent in representation of the mainstream public.

Jennifer Chacon, Multnomah County Health Department, 25 NE 10th Ave., Portland, Or, 97232, discussed why expanding roadways is not a good solution. She said intermodal transport is most beneficial from a public health standpoint. The personal automobile contributes the greatest portion to city pollution. Driving a car is likely the most polluting activity a citizen does daily. Auto emission contain hydrocarbons, which react with nitrogen oxides and sunlight to form ground-level ozone, a major component of smog. In addition, many exhaust hydrocarbons are toxic and potentially cancer-causing. Nitrogen oxides are also precursors to smog and contribute to acid rain. Carbon monoxide, which is also an auto emission, enters the bloodstream through the lungs and forms carboxy-hemoglobin, which inhibits the blood’s oxygen-carrying capacity. Infants, the elderly, persons with heart and respiratory diseases are particularly sensitive to carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide affects even healthy people, impairing exercise capacity, visual perception, manual dexterity, learning functions, and the ability to perform complex tasks. Nationally, two-thirds of the carbon monoxide emissions come from transportation sources. The largest contribution is from highway motor vehicles. In urban areas, 90% of carbon monoxide emissions come from motor vehicles. For example, her in Portland on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving--a commuter day--the air-pollution index for carbon monoxide downtown was 39. On Sunday--a non-commuter day--the index was 13.

Ozone is also a severe irritant, damaging lung tissue, aggravating respiratory disease, making people more susceptible to respiratory infections. As with carbon monoxide, it also affects healthy people. Children and adults with existing diseases are especially vulnerable. Elevated ozone levels inhibit plant growth and could cause widespread damage to crops and forests. In urban areas, at least half the pollutant causing ozone comes from vehicles--cars, buses, trucks, boats, and construction vehicles. Sunlight accelerates the process, making levels highest in afternoons when most people are out and about. In addition, auto emissions produce carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas. Although it does not have direct health effects, it contributes to global warming. In 1980, only 30% of Oregonians lived in clean air. Today, because of air-pollution controls, 99% do. But gains made by better emission control are being lost to the sheer volume of cars being driven. Also, from a public health standpoint, in 1996 over 41,000 people died in motor vehicle crashes and 3-1/2 billion people were injured. If any other disease or drug caused that kind of mortality and morbidity, people would be screaming for a cure.

Sean Swagerty, 5246 NE 19th, Portland, OR, 97211, read his testimony into the record. (A copy of his testimony is attached to the meeting record.) His testimony supported light rail and called into question some of the arguments used to oppose it.

Per Fagereng, 4108 SE 16th, Portland, OR, 97202, said that light rail suffers from an identity crisis--it can’t decide whether it’s a train or a trolley. It zips along in the outlying parts of the city, separated from traffic. It could be five or six cars long out there. But as soon as it hits the city streets, it slows down. Because the city blocks are so short, it can be only two cars long. It tries to be two separate systems in one weird hybrid. He said more commuter trains are needed and trains need to be separated from the city streets. Within the city, add more buses and/or streetcars.

He endorsed Mayor Katz’s idea of expanding fareless square--extended to the entire city, if possible. But at the very least, it should include the downtown east side. He said a trolley or streetcar loop could cross the Ross Island Bridge and continue up the east side and back to the west side downtown. He said the city should have more jitneys. He said San Francisco has had jitneys along Mission Street that co-exist with the muni rail system. He said what we do not need is another Los Angeles. Los Angeles has put all its transportation money into a rail system that serves only about 5% of the people, shortchanging city buses and people in south-central Los Angeles. Those people have filed a civil rights suit alleging separate but unequal transportation systems. They have staged strikes and have been supported by the bus drivers. He said our system should serve everybody. A light rail should separate into a commuter train part and a city streetcar part. He said that could be done fairly easily and with a lot less money and a lot less aggravation. He said do not tear up the beautiful downtown traffic mall.

Bill Muzzall, 915 NE Schuyler #606, Portland, OR, 97212, said when he sold his car two years ago he anticipated he would not need it because of the opening of the west side light rail and because of the north/south light rail on the drawing board at the time. He is an engineer at ODOT and said he saw everyday that building all the roads you want would not relieve congestion. Alternatives are needed. He said he still supports light rail, especially the south/north corridor, and anything that could be done, even just a part of it, would be better than nothing.

Robert O. McAlister, 1410 NE Schuyler #4, Portland, OR, 97212, 4108 SE 16th, Portland, OR 97202, read into the record his testimony advocating the use of hovercraft in place of light rail. (A copy of this testimony is attached to the meeting record.)

Steve Schopp, 10475 SW Helenius, Tualatin, OR 97062, said he lives just inside the urban growth boundary (UGB) and after years of observing the debate on light rail, he was curious about the lack of explanation or justification of Metro’s position on light rail supporters. He took issue with Mr. Swagerty’s testimony that made a mockery of the Cascade Policy Institute. He said he was not a supporter or an affiliate of the Institute, but had learned a great deal more from them than from the proponents of light rail. He cited a November 17, 1998, Oregonian article written by James Zehren, an attorney for Metro [sic], in response to another article. He reviewed the article and suggested that Metro and Tri-Met had failed to do an honest analysis of their own data. He said to continue the notion that light rail was reducing congestion was absolutely absurd and the people of Washington County now realized that. Furthermore, he felt the debate seemed similar to the one that took place before the eastside light rail was initiated. He felt after 12 years of eastside light rail and the opening of the westside light rail, there was just one arrogant statement after another and they were never substantiated by documentation. He wondered about the rest of the plan for dealing with the transportation problems in Washington County if the light rail was just part of it. He said funding more light rail was like coming up with a new fleet of modern high-tech gas buses and restricting them to just one street. He felt light rail did not make sense because it couldn’t service the areas next to it, and you have to ride a bus to get to the light rail to use it. He had studied the issue, and once the light rail system was done and the villages had been built up and down it, he failed to see the vision of the supporters that putting more people in the area and raising housing costs preserved livability when you did not deal with the roads, which are among the worst in the nation.

Councilor Washington clarified that Mr. Zehren was not an employee of Metro, he was a member of Metro’s Citizen Involvement Committee.

David Rasmussen, 4768 SE Milwaukie Ave., Portland, OR 97202, said he had overseen the light rail process for the Brooklyn neighborhood for the past 6 years. He said they had gone through most of the alternative proposals and what came out of it was--at least in his neighborhood--they could not get through the neighborhood without something that had a dedicated right-of-way. He said the fastest growing county in the region was using his neighborhood as a thoroughfare to downtown, and traffic backed up all the way to Powell Blvd. and down to Holgate in the mornings. He said doing away with light rail would not solve their very small neighborhood’s big problem. He emphasized that after looking at it from many points of view, the only one that came forward as a solution was light rail.

Dick Jones, 3205 SE Vineyard Rd., Oak Grove, OR, was a supporter of light rail at one time but after studying it, he concluded that light rail on the west side did not work any better than no light rail because as he studies showed, only a few hundred people were out of their cars on account of it. He said each light rail vote had resulted in less support within Metro. He said they should try to define a transportation plan that would to reduce congestion. They needed solutions that would lead to less congestion, such as HOV and truck lanes. He said Metro and Tri-Met should listen to the general public. He said almost every meeting he had attended regarding transportation showed him that Metro did not want to listen to people’s concerns. He said, in fact, that Tri-Met had declined an invitation to his community planning organization meeting, giving as a reason they do not participate in discussion meetings nor in meetings that are videotaped.

He felt the Metro Council must ask one simple question before allowing more housing within the UGB: where would the people who move into the houses most likely find jobs? He said creating housing in Clackamas County and jobs in Washington County not only does not make sense, it violates one of LCDC’s goals. Tri-Met should hold off starting construction to the airport until it is determined that light rail is the better choice over widening I-205 to include HOV lanes. He noted that Tri-Met’s own projection was that a $2 million loss would be incurred annually by the airport line. Some of the ideas in the Oregonian lately regarding proposed changes should be seriously considered immediately--for instance, making the Hawthorne Bridge exclusive to HOV and buses at rush hours.

Steve Buckstein, Cascade Policy Institute, 813 SW Alder, Portland, OR, 97205, said he would not criticize light rail today, but in the spirit of the hearing he would offer several positive alternatives they believed should be looked at. He said he believed the south/north light rail was rejected because the claimed benefits of traffic relief and pollution reduction and time savings did not exist. He noted a paper from March 1998, which he distributed to Council, that outlines low-cost solutions to Portland’s traffic problems. He said he hoped those solutions would be considered, now that the south/north had been defeated. The solutions, in short, include 1) eliminate existing laws restricting or prohibiting entry by private entrepreneurs in both the mass transit and taxi markets; 2) directing transportation subsidies to transit users rather than funneling over $138 million tax dollars a year to one provider, 3) continue congestion pricing, using Metro’s study and implementation of congestion pricing as just the first step. He closed by saying they thought voters had seriously questioned the value of light rail, and it was time to consider better and cheaper alternatives using real diversity, not with one provider, but with competition in the transit market.

Jim Zehren, 4116 SW Comus Street, Portland, OR 97219, mentioned that although he was speaking on his own behalf tonight he had some organizational affiliations that informed and motivated him on this issue. He helped staff the Quality of Life Chapter of Oregon Benchmarks for the state, was a member of the Regional Policy Advisory Committee of Metro before the charter was passed and had been a member of the MCCI since. He had been a member of the Growth Management Committee of the City of Portland, and was on the Board of Directors of Livable Oregon, Inc., all of which led him to struggle with land use issues and look at the bottom line being the quality of life and livability of the region. He suggested that the post mortems on the light rail were premature. He felt if the voters of the region took another look at the attributes and effects of light rail compared to the real alternatives, approval of light rail would occur. He felt they should move fast to take advantage of the $866 million in federal funds set aside for the project that could not be reassigned to other projects in the region.

He felt the vote was a combination of several factors: it was the lowest voter turnout ever, it was one of several substantial funding measures on the ballot, there were real and/or perceived notions that express bus service was cut down when the westside MAX opened that affected Washington County, there was a perception that light rail would stimulate growth rather than help channel it, there were specific routing oppositions including the Clark County connection and the issues were not really addressed in the campaign for the light rail. He felt it was critical to keep light rail as part of their range of options in the approach to transportation. He submitted written testimony, which is attached to the meeting record.

Philip Goff, 1955 NW Hoyt St., #24, Portland, OR 97209, said although the south/north ballot measure failed to pass, it was not a referendum on light rail transit, but a $575 million tax increase for a poorly conceived alignment. He felt others voted no in fear of compromised bus service to the region. He felt the region was still interested in the opportunities that light rail could offer. He encouraged the Council to consider the following quickly, before the chances for federal funding evaporated. For the third time Multnomah County residents strongly showed their desire for a north south light rail; therefore, consider building the next phase in Multnomah County. A North Portland alignment could create a whole MAX line for less that 25% of the full alignment’s price tag. The train could run from Kenton to the Rose Quarter and use existing infrastructure to run downtown and loop back at southwest 10th Ave. That could give Tri-Met and Metro time to reconsider the alignment defeated by the ballot measure and consider other alternatives, such as an eastside alignment or a downtown subway tunnel under the bus mall. He suggested any new proposal include funding for other modes to make it more palatable to the general public. The significant reductions in funding for this alignment would make other funds available for improved bus service, signage and shelters, more bike and pedestrian infrastructure, and improved master planning.

Councilor McLain responded to Mr. Jones’ conclusion about her analysis of the westside light rail. She said her good transportation days were days she rode the light rail. She was able to do that three or four times a week. She wanted to make sure nobody went away thinking she had the same conclusion as Mr. Jones on that line.

Marsha Hanchron, 2821 SW Spring Garden, Portland OR 97219 was called to testify but chose not to speak.

Karen Sandness, 901 SW King Ave., #917, Portland, OR 97205, testified about her disappointment that the light rail measure did not pass. She said she had sent a letter to Fred Hanson at Tri-Met outlining alternatives as she saw them. She offered suggestions as to what Metro could do to make transit more feasible for more people. She said that environmentalists have been accused of trying to force people out of their cars. That is not the case. She does not drive by choice, but she recognizes that cars are sometimes the best form of transportation. She said the question of compulsory driving has not been addressed. That is the situation in most of America. In spite of land use laws, compulsory driving is also the case in much of Portland. She said she is not referring only to suburban projects of the 1960s and 1970s, but also projects in the past five years. She said that large development housing hundreds of people who have no non-automobile access to services, stores, schools, recreation, or employment make driving compulsory. Even if these are high-density, if they are isolated, the people who live there are still subject to compulsory driving, regardless of how they might choose to get around. Businesses like strip malls still proliferate. In some of those strip malls, employees cannot get to restaurants without a car even though those restaurants might be within sight, because they are separated from the malls by cyclone fences that keep people from walking to them. If future developments were all required to be transit/bike/pedestrian friendly, people would not be forced to own more than one car. These kinds of neighborhoods in Portland--Hawthorne, Northwest, Irvington--are the most popular. They are transit friendly. She urged Metro to think of the total environment when transit plans are made.

Douglas Klotz, Willamette Pedestrian Coalition, 2630 SE 43rd Ave., Portland OR 97206, said that the Portland Metropolitan Region was close to being out of compliance for air quality, with two days of non-compliance this past summer. He said it was clear that some non-auto form of transportation was what the region should be working toward rather than building more freeways. All the modes need to have a walkable community design. Destinations need to be easy to walk to in a reasonable time. Compact retail centers, housing clustered along transit lines or near retail centers, higher-speed transit than what now exists. He said light rail is the best way to do that. He said other improvements could also be done in bus corridors. Designated bus lanes and signal preemptions can help. Current arterials do not need to be widened, as this divides communities and keeps people from crossing the street. Hawthorne, which is 52 feet from curb to curb, can be crossed in 13 seconds by the average person. The average arterial in Washington County is about 110 feet and takes about 25 seconds to cross. More connections are needed within neighborhoods and more connections in the street grid so all trips do not have to be made on the arterials. The connections make it easier to walk to either destinations or transit.

Greg Gritton, 2806 Knox Ridge Terrace, Forest Grove OR 97116, offered his suggestions for building a high-quality transportation system in the Portland area. He said if public transit is to take people out of their cars, then the system must be better than the automobile. It must be fast, comfortable, and not stuck in traffic. He said examples of good systems are San Francisco’s BART system. BART’s trains are wide, long, and fast. The trains average 45 miles per hour including stops. That is twice as fast as MAX. The 10-car trains hold five times as many people as MAX. The trains are wider, the seats are wider. MAX seats are too narrow to be comfortable. The BART is either elevated or underground or grade-separated, so it never gets stuck in traffic. It carries as many people as a full freeway--10,000 people at peak hour. Vancouver, B. C., has an elevated light rail system. It is completely out of traffic. They plan to expand it, at a cost of $90 million per mile--cheaper than the proposed South/North line. Seattle has a short monorail--just two stations. It has the advantage of having wide, comfortable cars similar to BART’s. It makes a profit, and it is fast. Seattle voted recently to expand that system. They ran a campaign that cost only $5,000, and it passed. Price estimates, including everything, ran about $50 million per mile--about half the cost of the proposed South/North. He suggested looking beyond light rail to elevated systems or monorails, which are less costly and offer advantages over light rail. He thought voters would be more likely to approve them.

Ray Polani, Co-Chair of Citizens for Better Transit, 61100 SE Ankeny St., Portland 97215, quoted Paul Weyrich of The New Electric Railway Journal, who advised light rail enthusiasts to build systems that are cheap and respond to public wishes. (Mr. Weyrich’s quotation is attached to the meeting record). Mr. Polani’s read his testimony in favor of elevated or sub-way systems rather than on-street. He also urged changing the concept to North/South, emphasizing connections to the north. (Copies of his testimony are attached to the meeting record.)

Don Arambula, 8224 No. Fenwich, Portland, OR, 97217, was called to testify but had gone.

Mark Jones, 4234 NW 179th Place, Portland, OR, 97229, was called to testify but had gone.

Martin Rostin, 4706 SE 18th Ave., Portland, OR, was called to testify but had gone.

Jay Cosnett, 2426 NE 45th, Portland, OR 97213, was called to testify but had gone.

Peter Fry 2153 SW Main # 104, Portland, OR 97204 was called to testify but had gone.

George Starr, 909 NE 114th, Portland OR 97220, said he was a retired railroad conductor. He said he is a fan of any kind of rail transportation. He expressed concern over the failure of the south/north project. He suggested designing a more Spartan program and bringing it back to the voters. He said he saw these problems: cost, congestion during construction, and absence of express busses. He suggested addressing those issues by dropping the extension to Clackamas Town Center, and terminating at Milwaukie. He suggested proceeding along McLoughlin Boulevard to SE 7th Ave., then crossing the gulch with a trestle to join the east-side line at Holladay Street. Then proceed to the Rose Garden, then on to Interstate Avenue and on to Kenton. He said at the point where the line enters 7th Avenue, he would replace the south/north line with an east-side connection; he would have an east-side line with a downtown connection. At 7th and McLoughlin the train could be split, part going east and the other going downtown. Take the Hawthorne bridge downtown to SW 1st, then take the Morrison/Yamhill loop and on to the Rose Garden, then couple with another train on the east side and continue to Kenton. He said if that wouldn’t work, then have one train going up the east side and another going downtown, and alternate back and forth. He added that he thought the lines needed fewer stops and fewer stations, to avoid slowing the trains down. He suggested adding express trains that could pass and run ahead of other trains, using the existing center sites at Beaverton and Gateway. He said people could transfer between the local trains and the express trains.

Chris Smith, 2343 NW Pettygrove St., Portland OR 97210, testified on behalf of what he termed the “regional commuter.” He said he supports light rail and all the proposed alignments. But he said he lives in Northwest Portland because it is walkable and has attributes of town centers. However, his best employment opportunity is with Tektronics. That means he must commute 36 miles round-trip. He has sought alternatives in order to reduce his environmental footprint, such as geometro and telecommuting. He realizes he is part of the problem. He has tried to use transit as an alternative. To do so he must take a bus to the transit mall, another bus to Barbur, and then the SMART system to get to Wilsonville. The Beaverton campus is easier to reach using light rail and a bus. He can get there in about 20 minutes.

He said light rail builds a hub and spoke system, which works okay along as the transit trip aligns with one of the spokes or around the hub. But one cannot get from the end of one spoke to another He suggested most people will accept one transfer in a transit trip, but two will lengthen the commute so much that a private automobile is faster even in congestion. He suggested building a larger core of regular transit users by serving more people initially before asking for the fixed, long-term investment.

Sybil Merrels, King Neighborhood Association, 815 NE Roselawn, Portland OR 97211, testified in support of a regional rail system. She expressed concern over the health of the residents in north and northeast Portland. She said Multnomah County was the only county to pass the ballot measure supporting the south/north line. Many of the volunteers on the campaign were from north and northeast Portland. She said children’s health should take priority over economic interests. She said the children in northeast Portland suffer disproportionately from environmental-related conditions and illnesses. She said that although residents of her area use public transit more than those in other areas, the area has the poorest service. She said the #6 bus sometimes does not show up, and when it does it is overcrowded. She said it costs only $0.20 more to travel on MAX from Gresham to Hillsboro than it does to go from Alberta to the Metro headquarters along Martin Luther King Blvd. Those with the lowest incomes pay considerably more per mile and receive substandard service. Further, the area is not served by new buses nor natural gas buses. The high level of asthma children in the area suffer is not surprising, given the industry that surrounds the neighborhood, that the neighborhood is bisected by I-5 and Highway 99. Trucks travel through residential areas. Residences breath industrial chemicals and diesel fumes, yet there are no air-quality monitoring stations anywhere in north or northeast Portland. She said that health comes before livability. She said it is time the health of the residences of north and northeast becomes a priority. She said this area could potentially attract many federal grants because of its great need in many area. Small investments in this area will yield big returns. She said many local activists are willing to help. She applauded the suggestion of free transit, and suggested it begin on Martin Luther King Blvd. She also applauded granting rights of way for buses and rail. She also said a north/south line that meets the needs of all citizens, not just those with money, is needed.

Art Lewellan, 3205 SE 8th #9, Portland, testified that the south/north light rail should not go downtown. He said it should remain on the east side in the Union Pacific corridor adjacent to the existing tracks all the way to Oregon City. He said he opposed the south/north not only because of its cost, but also because he believed it would be destructive to downtown. He also thought it would destroy north and northeast Portland, Milwaukie, and between Milwaukie and Clackamas Town Center. He said he supports light rail in general. He supports the central city streetcar and the airport alignment and the existing lines. He said he has supported an electric bus system to serve downtown. It would remove more diesel buses from downtown than light rail can. It could run as frequently as every 2-1/2 minutes, and at a fraction of the cost of light rail. He said few people know about his proposal and those who, do not support it. But he thinks it should be fully considered. He said the electric buses could go down Interstate. They would revitalize the corridors through which they travel. He said he was disappointed in the response he has received from Metro and Tri-Met, although the city of Portland has been helpful.

Dave Stewart, Citizens for Sensible Transportation, 4012 SE 51st, Portland OR 97206, testified in support of light rail. He was disappointed by the election result. He said he grew up in Milwaukie and looked forward to the arrival of light rail. Light rail is one of many tools. The goal is not just to build the project, but to support the regional plan--the 2040 plan. He said the time and effort to build the plan and the consensus achieved on it are phenomenal. He said it will be important to keep that as a goal. He encouraged all tools be re-examined in terms of regional livability, to come up with a plan. He encouraged the Councilors to take the time now to just listen.

Jennifer Siebold, King Neighborhood Association, 211 NE Jessup, Portland OR 97211, testified as to the health problems of the residents of north and northeast Portland compared with children in other areas. She said her research suggests that minority and poor in inner city areas suffer nationwide, not just in Portland. She said the presence of diesel traffic contributes to this. She said although she supports light rail in general, she did not support the south/north alignment because it would not have gone to Vancouver. This would help get cars off of I-5 and benefit the health of the community. She said six years ago, North Portland attracted more attention. It’s time to refocus on that area. She said to go from her house at Killingsworth and King by car takes 10 minutes, by bike takes 20 minutes, and by bus at least an hour. Transit does not serve this part of the city well.

Mark Ginsberg, 3024 SE 31st Ave., Portland, OR , said he is part of the problem here. He has lived in Portland for six years. He is one of the people who came to the area from elsewhere. He said well-managed growth is one of the reasons he came here. He said it will be important to continue managing growth. He said everyone wants to maintain a livable city and most people want options. Most people own and drive cars. Some people ride bikes, buses, or a combination. Most of us want all the options available. He hadn’t heard anyone testify that they wanted more pollution. He said affordable and convenient transportation should be available to everyone. Paving for more cars is not the answer.

Tad Winiecki, Advanced Transit Association, 16810 NE 40th, Vancouver, WA 98686-1808 read his testimony into the record supporting personal rapid transit. This involves small vehicles, electric power, and computer control. It runs on elevated guideways and offers many advantages over light rail in both ease of construction, expense, flexibility, and operation. (A copy of this testimony is attached to the meeting record.)

Charles Ramsey, 475 NW Glisan, Portland OR 97209, said he was hit by a pickup in downtown Portland while walking his bicycle in a crosswalk. He said if Metro expected him to ride a bicycle or walk downtown, it would have to make streets safer and ticket drivers who do not stop at crosswalks.

Ross Williams, Citizens for Sensible Transportation, 426 SE 19th, Portland, OR 97214, testified about light rail and congestion. He said many testifiers had questioned the ability of light rail to address congestion. He said that light rail is to congestion what an umbrella is to rain. An umbrella cannot stop the rain and light rail cannot prevent congestion. But both can offer an alternative to people who wish to avoid being in it. He said another point is that in talking about transportation systems, the conversation is not about solutions to problems. Rather it is about providing opportunities to people. Good public transportation makes it possible for a person in north or northeast Portland to take a job in Hillsboro. It lets kids get to the mall by themselves. It is about providing business people the ability to hire people who do not live in the community in which the business operates. Transportation provides employers with access to employees. Business people would have access to customers who do not live in their area but come there by transit. Light rail also encourages people to develop their communities in ways friendly to pedestrians. That is also important. He encouraged Metro to rejuvenate the light rail idea and look at systems that support 2040.

Bob Behnke, Aegis Transport-Information System, 11895 SW Burnett Lane, Beaverton OR 97008, testified that during the south/north campaign, a lot of false and misleading information appeared in local media. He found that bothersome, so he collected Tri-Met and Metro data to provide a factual database to determine what has happened to Tri-Met’s ridership, costs, revenues, and subsidy levels since 1971 when Tri-Met started. The data are in 1998 dollars, and include capital as well as operating costs. These data showed that the east-side light rail costs much more per passenger mile and per passenger trip than do buses. Those costs will be higher for the west side and for the proposed south/north line. Transit fares have dropped, as many riders are in fareless square or have free day passes. Costs have grown faster than inflation. Taxpayers subsidies have risen sharply. Taxpayers subsidies per capita in the Portland area are six times higher than they were in 1971. A typical family of four spends an estimated $780 per year on taxpayer subsidies. Those are Tri-Met numbers. He said the notion that light rail saves money is a delusion. He said light rail’s popularity has dropped considerably. He said suburb to suburb transportation has become a priority, not suburb to downtown. He said new creative ideas are needed. He questioned that Portland’s was such a great success story. (A copy of Mr. Behnke’s report is attached to the meeting record.)

Fred Nussbaum, 6510 SW Barnes Rd., Portland OR 97225, testified that the meaning of the defeat of the light rail ballot measure is not that people want more freeways or wider highways. He said he did not think it was a referendum on light rail as a technology. He said it was a referendum on a project that did not make sense. He said the original mandate of 1994 could still be followed if the project were designed to make more sense. To do that, trains need to run when they are most needed and most wanted. That would be between Milwaukie and downtown Vancouver. He said he anticipated that some people would question whether Oregonians should pay for a line to Vancouver. He thought it was appropriate. He said the interests of north and northeast Portland suggest it would be in Portland’s best interest. He supported the notion of calling the project the north/south project because that is where it is most needed and most wanted. He said downtown could be reached across the Hawthorne bridge and along 1st Avenue, connecting to the existing MAX tracks. He said the project should stay within the budget--the $470 million approved in 1994 plus the $475 million that would come from the federal government, for a total of $950 million. He said if the tracks cannot go downtown, then they ought to stay on the east side along Water Avenue.

Larry Mills, Tri-Met Citizen Advisory Committee, 1406 No. Winchell, Portland, OR 97217, said he has been a supporter of this project and a supporter of light rail. He has lobbied hard for his community--North Portland. He supports calling the line the north/south line to indicate that the need and support for the line are both in the north end of the corridor. He said the cost has become a problem, and other parts of the region have not supported the project. He said people in other parts of the region do not see a need for themselves to travel to North Portland. He said people need to understand that this project is important for the entire economic development of the area. He said he has lobbied for this as a system that enables neighborhoods in the process of revitalization. North Portland needs that. He said that on the Tri-Met Citizen’s Advisory Committee is currently working on the south portion of the Federal Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). He said he strongly encourages the Metro Council to endorse finishing the FEIS on the north portion. He said if that is dropped, that kills the project for the north part of Portland. He said it is important that a lot of voters are not only geographically distant from North Portland, but also demographically different. Those folks are not interested in what happens in North Portland.

Steve Fosler, 600 SW 10th Ave, Portland, OR 97205, said the concept of transportation is complex. He said he supports a strong role for Tri-Met and Metro in regional transit planning. He commended both agencies for taking leadership in this arena. He said transportation is about moving people, not cars. He said it is a system, not a thing. It balances the movement of people among modes that benefits the community and does not destroy it. The south/north light rail project as proposed was a good project. It had been refined to reduce cost and minimize construction impacts, increase travel speeds, and maximize ridership, with extensive public participation.

He said light rail already forms the back bone of the transportation system. In light of defeat at the ballot box, he suggested three things. First, finish the environmental impact statement, as it is almost finished and it will be needed sooner or later. Second, continue planning and building a comprehensive transit system, which includes light rail as a major component. Third, keep in mind the things that make the Portland region unique and livable: good transit that is getting better; regional growth management that keeps the urban area compact; limited construction of freeways and parking lots; and urban design that favors walking, biking, and person-to-person communication. He recommended taking a break from building light rail to shape or reshaping the suburbs-- not that there is anything wrong with that--but instead, build the next segment for the purpose of accommodating existing transit ridership. This interim project should be constructed where there are already thousands of daily transit riders--north/northeast Portland in the I-5 corridor and the segment between the convention center and the Expo center. After that, the rest of the north/south line could be build.

Rebecca Douglas, 5746 SE 22nd Ave., Portland Or 97202, testified on behalf of those who choose, for socially and environmentally responsible reasons, not to use freeways. She commended everyone who spoke. She urged the Council to be aware of how many of people each speaker represents. She said transportation is at the heart of culture. She said Portland offers many transportation options, but it could offer more. She expressed concern over the accessibility of transportation to everyone. She said a successful system must serve everyone. She said transportation affects the beauty of the area, the quality of the environment, and social health. Highways can divide and destroy communities. She said she came to Portland because of its reputation as a “green” city. She has become disillusioned over where it is headed. She said it would be important to stick to the 2040 plan and include alternatives to highways, such as bikeways, walkways, mass transit, and access for those who do not have options.

Jim Howell, AORTA, 3325 NE 45th, Portland OR 97213, said AORTA has opposed the light rail’s going to Clackamas Town Center, where it is not needed. Rather, it should go to Vancouver, where it is needed. It should not tear up the downtown transit mall. He said the Hawthorne Bridge should be the connection to downtown, to 1st and Yamhill. He said recently AORTA modified its position to accept an east-side connection along Water Avenue as an alternative, with dedicated shuttle buses to downtown. He said the organization was concerned about the project’s cost. He said the first light-rail line to Gresham was built for less than $15 million per mile. But $100 million per mile is obscene, even considering inflation. He said $100 million is what you’d pay for a first-rate metro system, not a light rail system. Something is wrong with the cost. He said a lot of fat has been built into the project, especially for going through the downtown. He said this project should not go downtown and should not run on the surface. He said within 10 years the east/west line will need to have something else done downtown. He said east/west is at half capacity. The number of trains likely will need to be doubled to accommodate growth in the next ten years. But the system was not designed as a high-capacity system because of the short blocks downtown and the need to run short trains. He said the idea of a subway should be investigated now.

Mike Schow, 4219 NE 39th, Portland, OR, testified as a north/south supporter. He said people he know who did not vote for it said the reasons were expense and alignment. He asked why the 205 corridor could not be used. It has the space. It was designed for that purpose. It could connect with the airport line. He said he would use it if it went to north Portland, but a lot of people wouldn’t. If there is nothing at each end that people want to reach, people won’t ride it. Even if it did not go to Vancouver, but to Hayden Island instead or to the mall, it would have pull on each end. An HOV lane could cross the bridge if Vancouver did not want to be part of it. He said there must be ways to cut the cost. He said he does not have children in school, but he always supports schools. He pays a lot for schools. The $3 per month to support the south/north line is far less than what he pays for schools that he does not use. He said he still hopes the line will be built.

Chair Washington closed the public hearing at public hearing at 8:30 PM.

2.  CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 17, 1998

Councilor McLain asked that the budget analyst who deals with transportation takes a look at the comments made about MILT and takes them into consideration when the budget is reviewed. She requested that staff take note of that.

4.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

None.

There being no further business before the Committee, Chair Washington adjourned the meeting at 8:34. PM.

Prepared by,

Pat Emmerson

Council Assistant

ATTACHMENTS TO THE RECORD FOR DECEMBER 2, 1998