METRO TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

Thursday, January 14, 1999

Ockley Green Middle School

6031 No. Montana

Portland

Present:  Ed Washington, Metro Council, District 5 (Chair); Bill Atherton, Metro Council, District 2; David Bragdon, Metro Council, District 7; Charlie Hales, Commissioner, City of Portland (JPACT); Dick Gallagher, Gresham City Council (JPACT); and Dick Feeney, Executive Director of Government Affairs, Tri-Met; Karl Rhode, City Council, Lake Oswego (JPACT)

1.  INTRODUCTIONS

Chair Washington welcomed the audience, introduced himself and noted that this public hearing was not about the revival of the South/North Light Rail. The purpose of the public hearing was to get the public’s ideas and thoughts on how we deal with issues of transportation in the region. He also said that if anyone had thoughts about how we pay for the transportation costs in the region, the committee would be happy to hear those suggestions. There were no silly ideas; they were just trying to get some answers. He announced that each citizen would be given three minutes to testify.

The committee introduced themselves. Chair Washington also introduced Alsena Boozer, a TriMet board member and invited her to join the committee. He acknowledged all of the staff , who made this public hearing work.

Chair Washington asked Andrew Cotugno to review the transportation issues of the region.

Andrew Cotugno, Director of Transportation Planning at Metro, said the debate concerning the South/North Light Rail was only one piece of a much larger puzzle. What was really at issue was how was this region going to manage growth, where did we expected growth to go, how did we target the places that can best accommodate the growth, how did we provide the transportation infrastructure to support that kind of growth in a manner that gave people choices about how they were going to travel. He noted copies of newsletter called, Getting There, an overall description of the framework for the transportation plan that they were now pursuing that would be in front of the Metro Council for adoption later this year to identify all the things you needed to do to serve the transportation needs of the region. Transit was an important role in serving that growth and needs but so were the freeway system, the arterials, bike improvements, pedestrian improvements. It was really the system that needed to meet the needs. There were decisions to be made based upon how did you best serve what the public wanted, how did you most cost effectively serve, and what could you afford. This really had the overlay of financing as part of the issue. The basic financing structure for the road system was through auto related fees such as gas taxes, truck fees, vehicle registration fees collected at the federal, state and local levels as well as traffic impact fees of one sort or another collected by cities and counties when growth was permitted. All of those sources combined were used to both maintain existing infrastructure and build new infrastructure. That road related system was underfunded substantially. It was underfunded because those sources didn’t keep pace with inflation and they lose ground with fuel efficiency. In addition, the basic funding for the transit system was also from federal funds but just as significantly from existing fares from the users and payroll taxes from employers around the region. They had enough of a resource there to pay for the operating expansion of the TriMet system based upon about 1.5% per year increase in service. Population was growing at almost 2% increase per year so we were gradually falling farther behind each year and in fact our plans to support the growth was based upon expanding closer to a rate of 3.8% per year. In effect, we ought to be expanding the transit system faster than population because there was lots of territory around the region that just did not have service and lots of other territory that had some service but not very good service. We really needed to be in a catch-up mode on expanding service. We could afford a rate less than population growth and we ought to be expanding at a rate twice population growth. On both the transit system and the road system we were way behind what we ought to be doing. The road conditions as a result were going backwards. We were losing ground on the conditions of the pavement as well as the amount of congestion on the roads. We were really far behind in our ability to fund that system. One large component of the financing picture that the South North project was aimed at was the fact that there was federal discretionary funds that funded that type of project. When we build a light rail project in this region, we were able to do it by bringing extra federal funds into this region for that construction. It was true on both the east and west side light rail projects and anticipated on the South North corridor. That was not money that we could choose to otherwise spend on I-5 or the Sunset Hwy. We didn’t receive the money if we didn’t build one of these types of projects. The money would go to somewhere else in the country. So that source of money was there if we pursued some type of project that the federal government found attractive but not if we didn’t receive the funds.

Councilor Washington said he had seen some charts at some of the transportation meetings that gave a breakdown of the average an Oregon citizen spends on electricity, phone, gas. He asked how much we were spending on transportation in this region per person?

Mr. Cotugno responded that the $.24 state gas tax equated to $.012 per mile every time you drive if you have a 20 mile per gallon car. Because you were paying $.24 for each gallon, it depended upon the fuel efficiency of the vehicle. So if you had a 10 miles per gallon car, you were then paying twice that amount. The average was about 20 miles per gallon. If you drove 15,000 miles per year, then you were paying a bill for use of the road system of about $12.50 per car to drive that mileage. So every month this would be like getting a bill of $12.50 to use the road system. The average monthly bill for all of the other utilities was substantially higher than this, garbage - $20,00, local telephone - $25.00, natural gas - $25.00, electricity - $45.00, sewer and water - $45.00. All of those monthly bills were collected for the purpose of building that infrastructure. The cheapest of all of those utility bills was the road system.

Councilor Washington called for questions.

Councilor Atherton said they had heard at the previous public hearing people discussing the subsidizing of transit. He had heard that automobile use was heavily subsidized, that there had been economic studies to indicate the level of that subsidy. He asked if Mr. Cotugno could give an indication of what that subsidy might be per ride.

Mr. Cotugno said he could not give a per ride number but recalled that it was about $2400.00 per year per car that non-auto related fees (i.e., general funds such as income and property taxes) went into some aspect of road operation. This equated to about one third of the bill for taking care of the road system. It was fairly substantial.

Chair Washington said that many times folks would zero in on a particular aspect of it and they would ride that baby to death. Transportation was a huge system that encompassed a whole lot of things and one of the purposes of this hearing was to be sure that they talked about the complete transportation system and how it impacted all of us.

2.  COMMUNICATIONS FROM REGIONAL PARTNERS

None.

3.  Public Hearing

Chair Ed Washington opened the public hearing at 6:00 PM.

Dan Loder, 649 NE Ainsworth, Portland, OR 97211, said he had lived in this neighborhood quite a while and had lived in 15 different counties over the past few years and seen quite a few transportation options to move millions of people in an efficient manner. He road his bike to the public hearing. He noted that he was proudly wearing his bike tag that he used every morning to commute from Northeast Portland to Tigard on TriMet. He found this was very effective and applauded TriMet for putting bike racks on transit. It was a fantastic program. He found that when he took the bus every morning to Tigard that he saw thousands of cars going into the Tewilliger curves from the south to north to get downtown. He said they were normally traveling about 15 to 20 miles per hour. He said that it had taken quite a while to get HOV lanes in the area and he was confounded as to why that was. He believed HOV lanes were a way to go. They moved many people and Portland. Unfortunately, ODOT wanted to do an experiment before the HOV lanes got going. We could see the effectiveness already. His question was why didn’t we get more HOV lanes going immediately. HOV lanes had already proven themselves and the test was not even over. He voted for light rail the first two times, he voted down North South even though it was coming through his neighborhood and could provide thousands of jobs. Property taxes were a great concern and there were too many options. There were too many single occupancy vehicles on the roads and he just heard that they were subsidizing those vehicles $2400.00 each year. He did not want to do that. He could purchase a very nice bike for that much money. We needed to use our existing resources. He suggested free buses. He had also heard that 22% of our revenues came from fare bars for TriMet. The other 80% was subsidized. With that 22% why couldn’t we use the money that we would get for light rail and make buses free for everyone. He suggested discussion on this idea. Other countries paid 300% to 400% of what we pay for gasoline taxes. We were whining that we paid so much for gas taxes. This was the only county in the world where that happened. He encouraged the public to stop whining about our gas taxes and if you wanted to drive a car all by yourself, you needed to be ready to pay the price. In closing, he said that the City of Portland did an awesome job of their bike program. There had been dozens of miles added of trails in the last three to four years. This was fantastic. Someone was finally seeing around the corner as to what was going on. This was encouraging people to get out of their cars and find alternative ways of transportation. He thought that single occupancy vehicles needed to pay a higher price. We needed to look at that $2400 subsidy when we thought about paying people to use their car. He thought this was outrageous, no one paid him to ride his bike.

Gerry Washington, Coalition for a Livable Future, 534 SW 3rd, Portland, OR, was testifying on behalf of the coalition. The Coalition was made up of 48 member organizations working towards a compact, equitable and sustainable region. Members of the coalition included such organizations as Urban League of Portland, 1000 Friends of Oregon, Audobon Society of Portland and League of Women Voters. The coalition viewed transportation as a key issue for the future livability of our region. She thanked the committee for the opportunity to allow these type of forums where there was an opportunity as community members to talk about issues like this. She shared the coalition’s new vision for transportation plans for this region. The plan was called, A Transportation Plan for Everybody. She noted that Mr. Loder had articulated the need to keep other alternatives very well. The plan called for transportation systems connecting every community in our region with safe, convenient, affordable, accessible transportation choices. One important piece of the Coalition’s Plan was extension of the light rail from the Rose Quarter transit station to Vancouver. She wanted to emphasize, despite the November vote on light rail, that many people in the region still liked light rail. We in north/northeast asked the question, what part of yes do you not understand. We did not see building more freeways as a solution to traffic congestion. We wanted to see transportation systems with options and we saw light rail as one of those options. As its title clearly stated, the Coalition proposed transportation plan was a plan for everybody. The Plan called for the improvements that would benefit bike riders and pedestrians because these were a significant component of the transportation strategy and land use planning that supported the development of regional centers and neighborhood connectivity in the Metro area. With respect to the light rail specifically, it would help reduce future pollution caused by increased congestion, benefiting residents in north/northeast Portland who suffered from the worst air pollution in Portland caused by the traffic on I-5. In addition, configuration of light rail offered opportunity for economic revitalization in the north/northeast community where there had been a very low level of economic investment. She knew there was a lot of individuals today who came to the meeting but were not planning on testifying. She asked that these individuals stand in support of her comments on light rail, from the Rose Quarter to Vancouver.

Councilor Washington announced that this was not a debate. He wanted to have everyone have the opportunity to testify.

Ms. Washington concluded by saying, give us the opportunity to role up our sleeves, take DEIS off the shelf and get to work on a plan that will be beneficial for this community and was planned by us.

Councilor Washington stated several ground rules. He introduced Charlie Hales, City Commissioner. For future testifiers, there would be a bell that buzzed at the end of the three minutes, Councilor Washington would then asked that individual to wrap up their comments. He reminded the audience that this was not a debate, we were hear to hear what each person had to say and everyone would be given that opportunity to state that whether they agreed with them or not.

Terry Parker, 1527 NE 65th Ave, Portland OR 97213, said he had testified on the light rail last year. He felt it was the alignment choices on North South that put the no votes over the top. He suggested a change in direction extending light rail south along I-205 where alignment already existed, crossing the Hawthorne Bridge from First Avenue to a transit center at the south end of Brooklyn Yards, building it with federal funds using the airport line as the local match. He also suggested a commuter rail from Vancouver to the south end of Brooklyn Yards. These were good reasonable cost option transit alternatives that should be given serious consideration. However, any line that went through North Portland should cross the Columbia to Vancouver otherwise it was not cost effective over bus service. He asked the audience how many had gotten to the public hearing other than by driving. He noted only one person. We needed to balance our transportation network and make realistic improvements to our streets and roads. The problem with transit was that it only went downtown in a timely manner. There had been no effort on the part of government to develop cross town routes to directly connect people with employment centers other than downtown. So only 12% of the region’s jobs were being directly served with current methodology. Commuting cross town in a timely manner required driving. He was not suggesting that we build more freeways but, for starters, general motor vehicle lanes should not be reduced by HOV facilities, striping from bicycles or anything else. Other take aways that created more congestion should be stopped. One such example was curb extensions. When you put a bus stop out there it created pollution because the buses stopped in the travel lanes, it created safety hazard and more congestion. Now was the time to stop wasting transportation dollars for the purpose of creating congestion and the practice of placing stops in travel lanes. There also must be balance in our transportation tax and fee structure. The idea that motorists paid only about 65% of the cost to driving was taken out of context. Transit riders paid only about fee 20 to 30% of the cost of services. Bicyclists paid 0% towards the costs of transportation facilities and road use. It cost $1.9 million to build the Barbur Blvd. bicycle lanes and bicyclist paid zero. Other taxes we all paid had no bearing toward the direct balance of the transportation arena. The playing field must be leveled before any additional increases were levied to those who already paid the most, that meant a bicycle tax must be your first source of new revenue for any transportation agenda.

Rex Burkholder, 1912 NE 11th, Portland, OR 97212, expressed concern about the increase in air pollution. One of his sons had asthma. Air pollution was growing in the north/northeast areas of Portland due to the amount of traffic on the I-5 corridor and toxic release of pollution from the industrial areas. 50% of the Clark County workers commuted to work in Portland. This was the second largest city in this area and it was growing as part of this region. There was a lot of push to widen I-5. The voters just passed a 1.9 billion dollar bond measure in the state of Washington for transportation improvements. He expressed concern that they would want to build a bridge ten lanes wide with those dollars. There was a demand from the Vancouver side to access this side of the river. If we didn’t do something like light rail to Vancouver we would be widening I-5. In the current Regional Transportation Plan that had been proposed, there was a $200 million project to widen I-5 from the Columbia Blvd. to the Columbia River to increase the amount of traffic that could flow through this area. He did not think this was good for north/northeast Portland. He suggested having a south bound toll on the bridge. He felt this was fair because the people who were dependent upon getting across the river should be helping to pay for some of these improvements. This could include assistance in paying for light rail to Vancouver.

Tad Winiecki, Advanced Transit Association, 16810 NE 40th Ave Vancouver, WA 98686, said when we design a transportation system we design it for the heaviest vehicles on it, big trucks. All of the bridges must be able to accommodate trucks. If the bridges only had to carry bicycles you could have small, low cost, light weight bridges. When we wanted to expand our system to get more capacity we still had to take care of the trucks. If only part of the traffic was trucks, why did we have to make all of our system to that standard, to trucks. If we wanted to just move people why didn’t we use small vehicles. He said he was a bicyclist and motorcyclist and it could be scary out on the roads. He suggested grade separation with overpasses, underpasses, tunnels, subways, attempting to separate the traffic by putting some on a higher level. If you put something on a higher level, you want to do it with something light so you don’t have to build a heavy structure. You want to use small vehicles. If the small vehicles were elevated they didn’t have to be concerned about the larger vehicles bumping into them. He proposed the idea of Personal Rapid Transit. He was a member of the Advanced Transit Association and they felt the way to go in the 21st Century was with new technology not with 19th Century technology. Personal Rapid Transit was a way to go none stop, no wait, a demand response system where the vehicle waited for you rather than you waiting for the vehicle. You could run PRTs 24 hours a day. He noted a handout from J Edward Anderson.

Cathy Galbraith, 2128 SE 35th Place Portland OR 97214, said she had seen the Oregonian article on limited the North Portland only light rail segment and she did not believe that the Oregonian made this information up. She noted that there was no mention of that proposal in the public hearing notice she received. She believed that Metro and TriMet were trying to develop a strategy to hang on to the federal transit funds that had been allocated directly for North South by coming up with some limited segment that would enable them to be able to access those funds. She was opposed to a limited North Portland light rail segment. This was the most densely developed portion of the entire light rail route. It had the smallest projected ridership of all of the segments. It had the highest percentage of low income households, the highest percentage of head of households who were minorities, the highest number of demolitions and displacements. It was ignorant and arrogant to think of undertaking what was, in fact, a public funded strategy to socially re-engineer inner-city neighborhoods in someone else’s image. The National Environmental Policy Act had environmental justice compliance requirements that spoke to many of those things. We all know there was a great deal of justification going on, you read real estate ads talking about rapidly changing neighborhoods. These were code words for gentrification that was taking place in the neighborhoods. Since 1958 starting with the construction of Memorial Coliseum and moving on to the construction of I-5 Freeway, the construction of the Fremont Bridge and Emmanual Hospital expansion, we displaced more than 1000 homes and hundreds of businesses for “somebody’s” public good. Those that were displaced were never fully subsidized for their displacement. She said she had gone door to door and talked to people along the north/northeast route that stood in the way of light rail. It was one of the most depressing experiences of her life. Many of these people did not know about the light rail project and many had told her they had been displaced two or three times before. These people indicated that they would not be going to the public hearings, they felt that they would do to us what they had done before and it didn’t matter what these individuals said. She said it was very disheartening, it was so many older people. If you had tried to apply for the light rail lift program if you were elderly and you had disabilities, that application had grown from a 1 page application to a 7 page application. She said she had read the DEIS, it very eloquently described the no build alternative which was really a live, valid functioning bus system. She said we could do transit with a bus system that was flexible and served everyone rather than the people that just need to go downtown.

Doris Colmes, 6539 N. Montana, Portland, OR 97217, said she was confused about Councilor Washington’s statement that light rail was not being considered as an alternative because she had in front of her his transportation news which said in fact we had $866 million we would lose if we didn’t build light rail. She also noted the Oregonian article about the proposed light rail segment. She said we voted the light rail down because homeowners did not want to foot the bill for everyone else via expensive property taxes. According to the DEIS Metro would spend at least $60 million per mile on light rail which was three times the cost a mile of four lane highway. Metro wanted to spend $866 million on light rail and didn’t want to give up all of that money. The project was voted down. Light rail cars went 20 miles per hour. Express buses could be much faster than light rail on almost any possible route. The real issue, which Metro did not discuss readily, appeared to be high density housing along the light rail routes which was guarantee to occur as soon as the route was confirmed. Clackamas to Rose Quarter would save 230 million BTU’s of energy per week day but building the line would cost 5.74 trillion BTU’s which was more than 75 years of BTU expenditure. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement predicted that light rail would reduce regional air pollution by a mere one tenth of one percent, far less than the statistical error allowance in the calculations. The cost for each new rider from Clackamas to Rose Quarter would be $21 per new rider. She, for one, did not want to have this kind of car fare tacked onto her property taxes. She continued to be informed through the media that Metro had not given up on the South North light rail idea. When she heard words like, ‘this is just a feasibility study” she found her intelligence insulted. We voted it down, give it up. Express bus lanes going south on I-5 in a special lane could start at Hayden Island, stop at Lombard and then hit I-5 for an uninterrupted trip into town. If Metro so desperately wanted a link to Clark County, she suggested extending the bus lines to Vancouver.

Pauline Bradford, 1745 NE 1st Portland OR 97212, said north and northeast Portland residents and businesses have been exploited by government. They had not fulfilled the stated goals, they had effectively removed the citizens from the areas. Examples included Coliseum, I-5 freeway, the school district, and Emmanual Hospital. To add insult to injury now that the redlining had been slowed, justification was beginning to take its toll. If, after all of the objections to South North light rail, it was going to be forced on us anyway, then please respect the present citizens of the area by including the true replacement cost of those who were displaced, include a written guarantee that present residents and businesses would be true beneficiaries of the anticipated economic growth costs. Historical and cultural landmarks of minorities be recognized and accounted for. She spoke to some ideas on alternatives to South North light rail such as utilizing existing rail lines with direct commute from Vancouver to downtown station during rush hours, realign and add bus service in all directions to make the commute time shorter and more convenient. Without stationary lines flexibility would serve the citizens better. Where indicated express buses should be employed. If the goal was to reduce car traffic, then she suggested free bus service inside the city with a city transportation gasoline tax imposed if necessary. Utilize and encourage incentives for workers to choose to live near their jobs thus reducing commute time. Encourage staggered work schedules where possible. Lastly, she asked why would you want to build a stationary transportation system in such a high earthquake impact area?

Diane Farmer Linkhart, Mississippi Historical District, 4045 N Missouri Ave Portland OR 97227 believed North South light rail had had its chance and no meant no. She was discouraged to see the Oregonian article. Light rail should not even be a topic at this point because it was another pathetic attempt at social and behavioral engineering. It was meant to enrich the developers who have invested their advertising dollars to try to force the public into something that was farcical by its very nature. In all of the discussions she had not heard any mention of wave of the future, telecommuting. Often touted as the wave of the future and for many careers why were we moving into this millennium behaving as if we are dealing with a high powered horse and buggy that we had persisted in calling ‘light rail’. We used to call it a streetcar and we buried the tracks and at least they were scenic. Rails were far more difficult to move than a mere change in bus routing. Of course this would allow for normal human behavior as opposed to creating wealth for high rise developers who wanted to force people into their tinder boxes. It was unconscionable to build these wealth creating developments on the backs of those who would be trust from family homes and businesses. (tape ended, unable to transcribe closing remarks).

Craig Anderson, 14 NE Monroe, Portland OR 97212, felt that a gas tax was the most fair way, a heavier car would pay more tax because they would be more likely to do more damage to the road. A new resident tax would help to pay for new roads and schools because we were expanding so rapidly. He did not have an answer to this but felt that the whole problem was the overpopulation.

Cedric Crowell, 5035 Mulagan, Portland OR 97217, said that he had lived in north Portland for more than 50 years. He felt that the South North light rail could be good if it saved time. Traffic congestion was bad from Vancouver to Beaverton but if it took longer to ride the light rail than to drive, he was not in support of light rail.

Ted Piccolo, Atlas Oregon, 11919 N Jantzen Ave Suite 205 Portland OR 97217, said he felt this hearing was about light rail. He felt that if they continued to resurrect this beast, they could point to this public hearing as one of the many community meetings showing a landslide of public support for light rail. He asked what part of “no” did they not understand in this last election. 54% voted no to this light rail. He stated that if the Council didn’t drop this whole idea of the light rail that he would make it his mission in life to raise $200,000 and spend it to defeat one of the councilors in the next election regardless of who they were running against. He suggested to the council to asked themselves if this was the one issue that they were willing to stake their political career on. He noted that the council had asked for ideas on transportation, he could not believe that the council was actually serious about entering into the twentieth century with new and creative ideas while still maintaining a death grip on this 19th century technology.

Councilor Washington noted correctly what he said in the Oregonian.

Gene Bogaty, 105 Dubois Ct., Vancouver WA 98661, said he lived in Vancouver and was one of the 67% who voted no on the light rail. He had not animosity toward light rail except that it would not solve the problem in Vancouver. The Kiddleson report done in 1992 indicated this. Tom Walsh and Mark Hatfield had said that west side light rail would not reduce traffic on the Sunset Hwy and the east side light rail did not reduce traffic on the Banfield Expressway. He liked the idea of using the income tax that Washingtonians paid for working in Oregon to widen the highway or build another bridge. The big problem was the bottleneck on I-5 where it narrowed to two lanes. It had been a problem and the reason that it was not widened was because he had heard that they deliberately wanted to keep this bottleneck so we would vote yes on light rail. He encouraged the committee to look into building anther bridge or building a tunnel.

Janet Denise Talbott, 6929 SE Pardee, Portland, OR 97206, was a TriMet driver who drove Interstate, North to Northeast Portland and Northeast Portland to pill hill. She was in that traffic everyday. She felt that light rail through north Portland would be a great idea because when speaking of HOV lanes or more freeway lanes, this meant more cars and buses on the roads creating more pollution. Light rail would keep the air cleaner. Pollution from freeways and vehicles polluted near playgrounds where children played. We needed to look at our alternatives, one being light rail. Express buses still got stuck when accidents occur. With a train, you would circumvent the accidents. We needed light rail.

David Eatwell, Kenton Action Plan, 2601 N Willis, Portland, OR 97217, said when it snowed he waited two to three hours for a bus. People from Vancouver decided to take the MAX to get home instead of waiting for the bus. He had heard talk about North South. He said after light rail was voted down a number of people told him that they were supportive of the concept of light rail but voted against it because the South leg was being build first. It was going south where it was not supported by the community. They did not have the congestion that was in the I-5 corridor. A light rail system that crossed the river was much more acceptable. He suggested that next time a vote on light rail occurred he thought it a good idea to tell the farmer in Lakeview and the senior citizen on fixed income why it was to their benefit to have light rail. When gas got hard to find, competition would get high. Toll roads and congestion pricing would put poor people, people on a fixed income out of mobility. When you couldn’t afford toll fees, you wouldn’t be able to go anywhere. Like other capital investments, it took a long time for a return on your investment.

Roger Troen, 4226 N. Montana, Portland, OR 97217, had lived there since 1946. He was willing to give up his home if there was some really good reason to have light rail. He lived by the freeway and did not believe he had suffered any pollution impact from the freeway. He thought this was the meeting they should have had first. The other meetings assumed that light rail was a foregone conclusion. We would get federal dollars, those federal dollars were his dollars. Representative Blumenhauer said that someone else would get those federal dollars if light rail was voted down. He noted that nine of the contractors (those that build the other two lines) were putting in $100,000 each to convince the people that they needed light rail. Thanks to certain media people like David Rhinehart and Lars Larson, we were able to pull it off. He said that even after the light rail was voted down that people were still saying they were going to build light rail.

Art Lewellan, LOTI, 3205 SE 8th #9 Portland OR 97212, did not support the South North light rail. He was supported of light rail and had proposed alternative systems. He had strong misgivings about every portion of the alignment of the South North including the north and northeast Portland alignment. He thought the alignments were wrong, not that rail couldn’t work. He proposed that the most practical way to get into Clark County was across the Glen Jackson bridge to the Vancouver Mall, regional center area which could use some development. This might require some vision from Vancouver. He said Vancouver wanted to put all of their money into their downtown area. He did not think this was a good use of their investment. If they went to Vancouver Mall they might decide to extend from there to downtown Vancouver. Then they would have a system that served them. He thought that light rail should not be through north and northeast Portland but through Swan Island underneath the peninsula. He suggested running an elevator down Columbia Park like at the Zoo, the impacts would not be as severe. Replacing the number 5 bus line and replacing it with light rail was not cost effective. If you wanted to redevelop a district you should not damage it first. He had suggested an electric bus system on I-5 which in the long run costs less than diesel buses. The electric bus system could be installed on the mall downtown and remove more diesels and run them at greater frequency, every 2.5 minutes. This would save money and cost less. He showed how they could build four light rails.

Larry Mills, Kenton Neighborhood Association, 1406 N Winchell Portland OR was a member of the TriMet citizen advisory committee. He said transportation demands in this region were going to become greater and greater. It also became clear that the vote made a statement, that statement was that the process was simply too expensive. Apparently Clackamas and Washington counties did not want to buy in on this plan. It was encouraging to him to see that there was support in the city of Portland for this system. He thought that what they needed to do was very critical. In both elections it seemed that the light rail was an isolated system not integrated into the entire transportation system. He said a number of people had spoken that it was a total system, no one was saying that light rail was going to relieve all of auto congestion. It was simply one piece of the pie and it needed to be integrated with all of the other bus lines and the entire system. He thought it would be a real educated process to let people know how the whole plan worked. He said it came down to putting your money where the vote was. He said he was always under the impression that north Portland was very supportive of light rail, if not at the polls they certainly were on the line. Anyone who had been to the corner of Lombard and Interstate knew what he was talking about. He encouraged the committee to continue with the FEIS on the north portion of the line and bring this thing to some sort of conclusion. He noted that one woman had said that light rail systems destroyed businesses. One of the pillars of the position in north Portland was that it was not destroying businesses but encouraging businesses, revitalizing part of the city.

Lenny Anderson, chairman of the Swan Island Transportation Committee, 2934 NE 27th Ave Portland OR 97212, said that he was heartened that the gist of the debate was more buses or light rail. Very few were saying lets build more freeways. All of the political leaders of the region should make clear that they were not interested in building more freeways as a strategy. We were interested in a balance that included lots of buses, light rail where it worked, and so on. He read a resolution from his committee (a copy of which may be found in the permanent record of this meeting).

Richard Lishner, AIA Urban Design Community, 2545 SE 37th Portland OR 97202 said he had worked on the light rail issue for three years. Any transportation solutions that were considered must address the land use goals of Metro 2040. This was the bottom line. If a transportation solution did not address the land use goals of 2040 it did not work. That was our law now, we had to meet the 2040 goals. So the transportation must meet the land use goals. The only alternative that did sell, in his opinion, in and of itself was South North. South North must be resurrected and preferably with no costly line beyond Milwaukie. The AIA had always been against the south segment. This was the line that was costing us the money and was an ineffective line. We were told all the time that that was a line that had to be built for political reason to get Clackamas County on board. Clackamas County was not going to be on board. We build light rail for people who want it. Milwaukie cold have their segment later when they realized they needed it. He was in favor of any alternative solutions that had been offered to reduce congestion. When he read the paper in the morning, and he agreed with Dave Rhinehart, he had another cup of coffee and read it again to make sure. Any of the solutions that had been proposed so far, he supported. He believed in HOV lanes, congestion pricing, and tolls. These were all ways of reducing congestion. Buy as many buses as you wanted as long as include light rail in the equation. None of these alternatives addressed land use except light rail. You were building the light rail to address land use issues. He said he was tired of transit being saddled with the idea that transit had to reduce congestion. He nor you did not spend $3 billion to reduce congestion for people who would not use the transit system. You build the transit for the people who would use it and want the alternatives to the automobile.

Jennifer Siebold, King Neighborhood Association, 211 NE Jessup, Portland, OR 97211, was health care provider who lived in north northeast Portland area. She directed her comment to the gentleman who said he had lived by the freeway for thirty years, he should consider himself very fortunate. North northeast had the highest incident of children with asthma due to the fact that they had the highest number of toxic release inventories, air permits to allow businesses to release toxins into the air and also had the I-5 corridor freeway. On top of that, if you looked at the current truck routes, that area also had the largest amount of the trucking industry going through the neighborhood. Currently, that was completely unregulated in terms of exhaust. The diesel particles were much smaller than auto particles and were able to get into the lung and create a lot more damage. One of the biggest things we could do to be progressive, like Colorado, would be to monitor and require regular inspection and maintenance of diesel vehicles. She said there was only 11 states that had programs like this with most of them being voluntary. Many of them didn’t address heavy diesel only light diesel. She encouraged the committee to be progressive and to take heed of those things. She said that on top of the diesel pollution and the toxic releases that the kids in the community were exposed to, it was certainly not reasonable to expect that we should bear more pollution from Clark County commuters. She suggested that we take their money and give them the North South light rail to decrease the amount of pollution on our community. She also suggested getting the trucks out of the neighborhood, Martin Luther King Blvd. was a community street filled with diesel activity and if you wanted it to be a pedestrian thorough fare then we needed to get trucks back on to the freeway and out of the neighborhoods. Lastly, she updated the committee, she said that it took her as long to walk home as it did to take the bus. She felt that this was a problem.

Joseph Doyle, 6119 N Concord Ave Portland OR said he had been a citizen of Portland and Oregon for the past forty years. He noted the past meeting where they were being asked their opinion of light rail, after the fact. He said we had a problem in the city of Portland, which was bringing people from outside the city into the metropolitan area. If the money was still on the shelf to put in the South North light rail he suggested that he would come up with a plan and spend a lot less money on it.

Ray Polani, 6110 SE Ankeny St., Portland, OR spoke as co-chair of Citizens for Better Transit. Measure 26-74 failed in November 52% to 48%. It failed in Washington and Clackamas Counties but it passed in Multnomah County 52% to 48%. Almost all of the North South light rail would be in Multnomah County but it would have cost $100 million per mile. It would only have reached Kenton and would have gone to Clackamas Town Center. Paul Ryrich, the publisher of the national, New Electric Railroad, a conservative friend of rail, in the 1996 Spring issue said, there was a threat to the trolley, light rail renaissance and this time it came from within. It was called overspending. He also said, light rail lines had been built at very reasonable cost, less than $20 million per mile. If the industry could not or would not police itself, it must be policed by others. Such policing would take the form of opposing all new light rail projects even good ones. He concluded by saying, do it right, keep it simple, cheap, focus on what was important to the customer, not the consultants. Give the customer what they wanted at a price they all could afford. What to do, first, change the name of the project to North South because the worst problem was in north Portland in the I-5 corridor and across the bridge into downtown Vancouver. Light rail would tie into the CTran system, so North South. Then deal with downtown Portland where more parking was being built, assuring more automobiles but no more street space. To superimpose two costly surface light rail lines on this congestion was pure folly. It was now 21 minutes from Holiday Park in Lloyd Center to Goose Hollow on light rail which was already carrying some 60,000 daily riders. Respect the 1994 voters, build from Vancouver, Clark County to downtown Milwaukie, Clackamas County and for now stay on the east side of downtown providing dedicated buses meeting connecting cars with the existing transit mall. Keep the costs down to begin with and begin serious planning for all regional rail east/west and north/south to go underground in the heart of the city for capacity and speed. Learn from more mature cities like Vancouver BC, San Francisco. Their rails were underground in the downtown, built incrementally. Remember, keep it cheap, serve the riders, we did need alternatives to the automobile.

Michael Kepcha, 39215 NE 28th Washougal, WA 98671, said he was in favor of the light rail. It would now be 10 years down the road before any more money would be available if we didn’t do something to recapture the federal money. In Clark County in the next three years every major road would be under construction for widening including bicycle and HOV lanes. There was a shortfall in the area of about $600 million. Multnomah, Washington and Clackamas counties were facing the same shortfalls just for maintenance to keep the roads running. He encouraged the committee to try and keep the federal moneys.

Tom Kelly, representing Neil Kelly Co and North/Northeast Business Association, 173 NE Bridgeter Rd. #2 Portland OR 97211, said that this area had had a lot to say about the light rail. The association supported North South light rail very strongly. The Association still supported light rail, Multnomah County voted for it. We would like to see it built, he thought it was a great benefit to the citizens of Northeast Portland. He thought there was not enough discussion about the issue of air quality. His message to the community was, what part of pollution do you not understand. We needed to deal with the issue in our area and in our city.

Don Arambula, Renton Neighborhood Association, 8224 N Fenwick, Portland, OR 97217 reaffirmed the comments that had been heard tonight. He thought the Kenton neighborhood had a lot to gain from the South North light rail. We were a neighborhood which was built upon the streetcar, the neighborhood would like to see that redeveloped as it was originally intended to. In 1963, the I-5 construction ripped north Portland apart. Social justice may ignore and displace some of the residents in north Portland. The reality was that things were gentrified, the automobile probably did have the greatest effect in that gentrification because travel distances made it much more attractive to live in the central city. Light rail provided mobility and allowed residents in his neighborhood, where there 20% of the population did not own an automobile, to access transit at a reasonable cost. He also believed that there was enough redevelopable land in north and northeast Portland where the population was lower now than it was in 1970 to allow for effective transit oriented development.

Sybil Merrels, 815 NE Roselawn, Portland OR 97211. Ms. Merrels said she is a scientists who has had a great deal of experience with brownfields and environmental contaminants. She said she had heard a lot of opinion this evening and not a lot of facts. She said that North/Northeast Portland did approve the south/north light rail. She said North Portland has the highest amount of air-borne pollutants, the highest number of brownfields in the city, and the poorest bus service. She thought perhaps it also had the highest usage of bus service, although she had no figures on that. She said it had the highest rates of asthma, highest percentage of minorities and poor people, and a Superfund site--the most toxic site in the state. She said time did not allow a full discussion of all the options following defeat of the south/north proposals. She said one of the compelling arguments she had heard was that Metro had gone to the public after the fact. She said at one of the meetings held at Ockley Green School prior to the vote, the staff had presented a number of maps showing displacements of people. With public involvement, nearly all the plans the groups came up with drastically reduced the number of displacements. She said she does support light rail, and she supports an alignment that goes all the way to Vancouver. She strongly encourages more public involvement.

Deborah Howes, 7315 No. Fenwick, Portland, OR ZIP. She said she campaigned for House Representative on the Pacific Party ticket to represent North Portland. She said she went door-to-door as part of her campaign, talking to people about light rail. She supports light rail. She said people need to remember that transit is not just a way to move people around. It is a development tool, and North Portland needs development. She said we need to look at poverty in that region. She said there is a lot of poverty in the region. She said there are several important reasons we must address poverty in the city and do whatever we can to equalize things. She said there are a lot of things that can be done to build housing people can live in by getting developers involved. Transit can encourage development. She said in Vancouver, British Columbia, they made developers pay for the infrastructure and they required a certain amount of affordable housing in every development. She said that meant really affordable--not a monthly income of $18,000 to qualify. She said people want to live and build in Portland. She said Metro needs to require smart building so all people have equal opportunity to find a place to live and make sure jobs are there for people to go to. Metro needs to make sure there is a way to get around that won’t choke people. She said the responsibility lies with Metro. She said it is the people and not the developers who elect Metro officials. She said she likes light rail and takes it downtown. She said bus service in North Portland is terrible.

Nathan Kappel, 2147 NW Glisan, Portland, OR 97210. Mr. Kappel said he commutes daily by bicycle. He said Portland is too large to have every person commute by auto. Automobile traffic is already bad. He said building more roads is expensive and leads to more automobiles and more congestion. He said expanding any highways--I-5 or Highway 26 is expensive. That money would be better spent on alternatives to automobiles, including combinations of buses, light rail, bike paths and bike-friendly planning. He said we should decrease the attractiveness of automobile use and encourage walking. He suggested instituting higher gasoline taxes, making parking more expensive, and reducing the amount of parking. Alternatives cost money. He said people expect automobile use to be reasonable. That is because it is subsidized by non-automobile dollars. He said the full cost of driving needs to be assumed through increasing automobile registration fees, increasing gas taxes, and increasing parking rates. He said we should decrease the socially induced requirements for businesses to provide free parking that is not really free but paid for by consumers. He sais we should spend the money that is now spent to subsidize automobile driving to support other sensible and sustainable alternatives--public transportation, bicycling, and walking. The heavy automobile subsidy needs to end. He urged the panel not to build more roads. Finally, he said not to abandon light rail in the Portland Metro area. Without light rail it would be difficult to move people away from automobile use. There were a lot of reasons people did not support the north/south light rail, including the route and the cost. But a lot of people still support the idea, and it should not be abandoned.

Jim Howell, 3325 NE 45th, Portland 97213. Mr. Howell said he did not know why these meetings were being held. He did not know why the last vote was held. He said in 1994 the region overwhelmingly supported a south/north line to Vancouver, provided the federal government helped pay for it. He said he heard this evening that the federal government had $866 million for this project. He said the voters voted to tax themselves $475 for this project. According to his arithmetic, that totals $1.34 billion for a project that runs from Vancouver to Clackamas County. He said if 13.3 miles of light rail cannot be built for that amount of money, then the project needs a new management team. He said the first mistake was that someone decided to extend the line nine miles into Clark County, where no bus service now exists. The Clark County voters said they did not need it. He said no one ever asked if they wanted light rail to the downtown transit hub. He said that probably would have been supported. He said project supporters then reacted to that by eliminating the northern part, and that proposal was defeated twice. He said they should go back to the original plan, but stop at downtown Vancouver. He said $1.34 billion should build that segment. He said costs are overestimated. He said in 1984 Tri-Met had a study done to estimate how much it would cost to build a bridge across the Columbia River. The engineering firm that did the study estimated $25 million. Considering 20 years of inflation, that would be about $50 million today. He questioned why the current estimate for this project was over $100 million. He said that is 100% more than it should be, considering inflation. He suggested reexamining the management team and the consultants, then getting the project built using the money that has already been approved.

Nancy Bethurene, 1725 No. Schofield St., Portland, OR 97217. Ms. Bethurene said she opposed light rail for several reasons. She said it would increase property values outrageously. She said it would cost the people who are on fixed incomes. She said too many people would lose their homes. She said she was tired of people assaulting car drivers, especially bicyclists. She said bicyclists expect automobile drivers to pay for their facilities. She said that was not acceptable. She said she was tired of being penalized for being a car driver. She said driving a cars is her right. She said not everyone can take a bus, walk, or bicycle. Some people have poor health, are elderly, or are disabled. She said she has severe asthma and it cramps her ability to take transit. She said she needs her car and she cannot be taxed to death with fees. She said if someone is to tax her to death, then she would expect someone to come and pick her up and take her around. She said she would give up her driving rights if someone would take her around. She said taxpayers subsidize bicyclists. She was tired of paying for them. She said they should have a fee on their bikes and on their paths. She said HOV lanes are bad because people are backed up over the bridges while the people in the HOV lanes go freely. She said that was not successful in her view. She opposes more density. She did not want to be crammed in like a sardine. She said she growth should be slowed down. She said denying the right to drive would not solve the problem.

Nancy Cushwa, 2715 No. Terry, Portland OR 97217. Ms. Cushwa said that according to the Environmental Defense Fund on the Internet, Multnomah County is included in the top 20% of the most polluted counties in the United States. She said 36% of that pollution comes from automobiles and trucks. She said that is one reason she supports light rail. She said she heard someone tonight mention that light rail is a 19th century solution to the problem. She said that is not true. She said the reason we have so many cars is because automobile companies have sold the public a bill of goods that automobiles are the way to go. She said a traffic expert who rated I-5 from “A” (flowing traffic) to “F” ( a parking lot), rated the section from the bridge to the Rose Quarter an “E.” She said the population continues to grow. She said the sport utility vehicles do not have the same pollution standards as regular automobiles, and that needs to be changed.

Mary Harrison, 1135 N.E. Holland St., Portland, OR 97211. She said she came tonight because she was surprised there was another hearing on light rail. She thought when the citizens voted, it meant something. She said she voted no on the light rail because too many people would be displaced. She said housing is too expensive for people to move. She said the added tax burden would be too much for her. She said the traffic from Vancouver is the problem, yet those people would not be paying for the light rail. She said when the people say they do not want something, that is what they mean and that should be respected.

Tom Guinan, 8528 No. Tioga, Portland, OR 97203. He said he attended a meeting about light rail a year ago. He asked what percentage of the increase in the Banfield traffic was heading downtown. He said the answer was 1% or 2%. He said that indicates traffic is going to places not served by light rail. He said virtually no new traffic is going to places currently served by light rail. He said on the westside light rail, the main complaints center on the lack of space in the park & ride lots. People are using it. He said some people have said light rail is 19th century technology. He said for people to look at their feet. That technology is thousands of years old. Some good ideas remain in fashion. He said a lot of people opposed to light rail throw around some scary numbers. But he said the numbers without light rail are scarier. He said the percentage traffic increases are greater. He said Metro must bear some responsibility for the loss of the ballot measure, in that Metro’s own information downplayed the cost of building new freeways. Los Angeles’s Century Freeway or Boston’s “Big Dig” costs over $12 billion on 8 to 10 miles of freeway--a $ billion a mile. He said he had read nearly all the books in the Multnomah County Library on transit. He learned than any book that takes a position notes that the cheaper systems, with the exception of San Diego--which is a unique situation because it lies near the Mexican boarder--are general considered to be not as effective. Lowering investment lowers ridership. He said that the bus service to St. Johns, especially on the weekends, is terrible. He said something needs to be done to improve it. He also noted a book called “The Motorization of American Cities,” in which the author describes the lobbying efforts in the 1930s, 40s and 50s by the auto industry to get the interstate highway system built. He said he did not see any difference between that and the construction industry now lobbying for something as well. He said the same book also comments that rail taxes were used and people who had bought the lobbying of the auto industry forced out the streetcars. The book concludes that “while there is no smoking gun, there’s an awful lot of used cartridge shells laying around.” He said although there is no magic bullet, light rail remains an important part of a multi-modal solution. He said light rail, expanded bus service, expanded bike lanes are all part of the solution.

Peter Teneau, 2715 No. Terry, Portland, OR 97217. Mr. Teneau said he is chair of the Kenton Neighborhood Association and has worked on the light rail project for some time. He said he still supports the light rail, although he has always thought the line should be north/south rather than south/north. He said it is entirely appropriate for light rail to be a component in development and economic stimulation. He thought a light rail station would do that for the Kenton neighborhood. He said that it is time to go into the future via the past. He said rail transit is common in the east. He said rail is part of a multi-modal approach to transportation that takes into account land use goals. He said he thought that was what Metro was attempting to do. He said light rail is not the only solution to transportation problems, but it could alleviate some traffic. It should go all the way to Vancouver. He would urge Metro to go forward and complete the final stages of the EIS and then build the system at least from the Rose Quarter to Vancouver.

Steve Fosler, 138 NE Stafford St., Portland, OR 97211. He pointed out that his precinct did not turn up on the list presented by Mr. Piccolo earlier in the evening, along with about 40 or 50 others. He said Mr. Piccolo’s list was carefully chosen. He said based on what he had heard this evening, the article in Monday’s Oregonian raised a few hackles. He said a lot of people read the headline without reading the article. The article said, among other things, there seemed to be little support in Metro or Tri-Met to pursue the south/north light rail. He said his quote was that the citizens have to convince them to proceed. He said the support lies in the citizens who have worked hard for some years on the project. He said Metro needs to finish the FEIS by September in order to be in on the last available funding cycle, and he offered to help do that. He urged Tri-Met, the City of Portland, and the other jurisdictions to pitch in, too. He said the supporters of light rail do not want to give up and they urge Metro not to give up, either.

Fred Nussbaum, 6510 SW Barnes Rd., Portland, OR 97225. Mr. Nussbaum said he is a long-term resident of this area. He said based on the testimony he had heard, the people from North and Northeast Portland would greatly benefit from a line that went to downtown Vancouver. He said the commuters from Clark County are causing a lot of the problems that affect the area--pollution, traffic congestion--and that will continue. He said some people mentioned they opposed light rail because it would displace residents or businesses. He said he would like to ask them what they think would happen if I-5 were widened to accommodate increased traffic. He asked how much that would cost the taxpayers. He said the line should be called north/south and run at least from Vancouver to the Rose Quarter if not all the way to Milwaukie. He said he would like to see it go all the way to Milwaukie, because then it could be done under the original 1994 vote, which is still in effect.

Ken Carter, 5516 No. Detroit, Portland, OR 98664. He said he had lived in this area for some time. He said his concern was that a lot of experts come in and say how things should be done. He said the people who should be allowed to speak early. He said whatever is done, it should be balanced. He said roads should be widened if needed. He said bikes, cars, and light rail should be included. He said he voted for the light rail, but he urged balance with other means of transportation.

Nancy Carter 5516 No. Detroit, Portland, OR 98664. Ms. Carter said she supports light rail and development of North Portland. She said North Portland needs the kind of improvement she believes light rail can bring. She believes that light rail will reduce crime and attract business. She said she is willing to pay her share of taxes to achieve that. She said is supports development of the area. She said she has a child who suffers respiratory problems that she believes are due to air pollution in the area.

John Rettig, Forest Park Neighborhood Assn., 8646 NW Skyline Blvd., Portland, OR 97231. Mr. Rettig said he has been a long-time supporter of light rail. He said he has never had access to transit in his neighborhood, but now he can take the west side light rail to work. He said all the things people said it would be it is. He said it is a pleasure to go downtown, not having to fight the traffic on Highway 26. He said he had heard testimony this evening that equates better bus service to light rail. He said he does not agree. He said light rail is far superior to bus service. First, it runs along a fixed route, so you know it will not move. Bus routes can change on you. A fixed route encourages businesses, because they know that the route will not change. He said buses do not have that synergy with businesses. Second, he said light rail service is more frequent, which retains riders. He said he will not wait for a bus for more than 15 minutes. Third, he said on-time service is more likely with light rail, as the trains have fewer lights and less traffic to dela with. Fourth, light rail is not stigmatized. He said buses carry a stigma for whatever reason. He said lots of people are willing to ride light rail who are not willing to ride a bus. Fifth, he said light rail is cleaner. There are no diesel fumes. Sixth, he said light rail displaces fewer people and businesses compared with freeways.