CLACKAMAS COUNTY TRANSPORTATION LISTENING POST

Thursday, January 21, 1999

Clackamas Community Club

Presiding Officer Monroe called the meeting to order at 5:45 PM.

Presiding Officer Monroe: “Jon Kvistad, chair of JPACT, and chair of the Transportation Committee at Metro; and Ed Washington, former chair of JPACT, who actually initiated the call for these public hearings, are on their way, I assume they are locked in traffic.

“We’re here to hear from you about your ideas for dealing with transportation problems, particularly in the north part of Clackamas County. We had a vote in November and the light rail proposal was defeated. When this happened, Councilor Washington decided we needed to go back to folks and hear their alternatives, in terms of solving transportation problems in the entire Metro region. This is the third meeting in a series. In addition to this hearing, hearings have been held in Washington County and in Multnomah County.

“There are a number of people who want to testify, and each person will be given three minutes to testify. When your three minutes are up we ask that you quickly finish your thoughts. This way everybody will have an opportunity to speak.”

Presiding Officer Monroe then asked those people sitting at the front table to introduce themselves. The following individuals did so briefly: Karl Rohde, Lake Oswego city councilor, representing the cities of Clackamas Counties at JPACT; Rod Park, Metro Councilor, District 1; Bill Atherton, Metro Councilor, District 2; David Bragdon, Metro Councilor, District 7; Dick Feeney, government affairs executive at Tri-Met; Jim Kight, City Council of Troutdale, representing the cities of Troutdale, Gresham, Fairview, and Wood Village; Rod Monroe, Metro Presiding Officer; Jon Kvistad, Metro Transportation Committee Chair, chair of JPACT; Ed Washington, Metro Councilor, District 5, former Metro Transportation Committee Chair.

At this point, Presiding Officer Monroe turned the gavel over to Chair Kvistad, who continued as chair of the meeting.

Chair Kvistad: “Our apologies for being late. We got a late start out of Metro, got on I-84, and the rest is history, as you well know.

“I want to thank you for taking time out of your day to come and speak to us. We have been asking around the region, with the failure of South/North, and with so many transportation problems around the region, what people think we ought to do next. The purpose of these meetings is not for us to try to sell you on something that has been voted down.

“We are beginning to start the next round of funding, working with both Republicans and Democrats in the state legislature to work with them on a transportation package that works for everyone. This is the last of our listening post outreaches, and we will now go back to the Metro Council and to JPACT, and work to come up with a package of funding ideas that fit the needs of the region. So this is not a light rail meeting; it is not the first step to put light rail back into Milwaukie.

“Our big problem is with transportation dollars -- there just aren’t many available. Over the next few years we have a little less than $1 billion available to fund $4 billion in projects. This is not adding new roads, one new mile lane -- nothing. The projection is that over the next 20 years, in order to get the regional transportation system up to a level of funding that will keep things even -- with no major road projects -- rather, just to bring Oregon’s roads and bridges up to speed, will require about $14 billion. However, there will only be $941 million available. For the next year or so, we have only $75 million to deal with $300+ million in needs. This does not include light rail, there is no transit other than some buses to be purchased for Tri-Met.

“We do appreciate you taking the time to testify. We do ask that when you testify, you talk to us about your ideas -- where you think we should go. How we should fund projects. What we should do next.”

Councilor Washington: “My apologies for being late. I’m sorry some of you were waiting while I was out on the freeway. This is a meeting to find out where we should go from here. How we should get there, and above all, how we should pay for it. I hope you will share your ideas with us. I know you may have strong views. All I ask is that we all be respectful of each other. At one meeting, we received a sort of veiled threat, which was not appropriate. We are trying to get some answers, folks. We need some answers.”

Councilor Washington then called members of the public to testify.

Steve Long, 11485 SE 59th Ave., Milwaukie, OR 97222: “I am a long-term resident of the city of Milwaukie. I am in favor of light rail. I’m not sure that light rail opponents are listening. In 1998, surface temperatures were the highest on record, according to the World Meteorological Organization. Additionally, the organization stated that 1998 will be the twentieth year in a row that the globe’s surface temperatures have been higher than the long-term trend from 1961 to 1990. Main stream scientists project that the surface will warm an additional two to six degrees during the next century if carbon dioxide emissions are not reduced. Cars and buses produce greenhouse gases, and we need transportation alternatives to fossil fuels if we are going to stay viable for the long term. We need to plan for that now, rather than later.

“I am quite unhappy about the soft approach that has been used to convince voters to support light rail. There are always going to be money measures on the ballot. I don’t believe this last failure was about competition for money. It was about the failure of officials to provide clear, strong, solid, and convincing arguments in favor of light rail. Proponents must be so solid as to make opponents look foolish for their opposition.

“What we need are transportation options and real solutions to our transportation problems. HOV lanes are, in and of themselves, mere Band-Aids. More bus service does not work when traffic is at a standstill. Light rail is a part of a total transportation solution.

“‘Welcome to mostly-urban Oregon,’ states an article in the November 23, 1998 edition of The Oregonian. The article references Portland State University, which houses the center for population research, and states that Oregon has climbed past 70% urbanization. December 5 op-ed piece titled ‘Mining Tomorrow’s Energy’ from The Oregonian reads as follows: ‘For most of the century that we are about to leave, America has relied on fossil fuels to feed it’s great economic engine. This has left us with a potentially crippling dependency on oil, coal and natural gases. Consumption habits that we must break. We must not allow the loss of the last battle to indicate the loss of the war.’

“As I walk down our streets I see a thin sheen of oil and gas on them. This in turn runs off into our rivers, which in turn runs into our drinking supplies and into our oceans. It is preposterous to throw away $900 million federal to help us build a sensible, solid transportation system. By investing in light rail today, we are investing in the future of our region in a manner which is not unlike investing in a college degree. We are investing in our future and the futures of our children.”

Miles Cunneen, 5229 East Burnside St,#12, Portland, OR 97215: “I have background as a transportation planner, and analyst/planner in alternative transit systems. I want to make the case for HOV systems, especially fully-separated high occupancy lanes and systems.

“I have looked at data and studies that go back over the 30-year experiment that we have had in federal financing of urban transport systems. HOV has been out there for 30 years, and where it has been implemented, it has worked wonderfully. Passenger surveys for 30 different systems -- rail, different types of rail, and HOV -- and these surveys show that HOV attracts the higher percentage of people out of their cars. So they have been more effective at reducing auto congestion.

“It was also found that when a special lane is provided for buses, the result is a very high quality, direct transit service, at a higher speed than light rail, which doesn’t require a transfer. It also provides a right-of-way for school buses and carpools, which under your existing plans are caught in congestion.

“So HOV is much more than a Band-Aid. It is a more effective solution, and a far less expensive solution. $10 million or $15 million a mile as opposed to $100 or $130 million a mile, with lower operating and maintenance costs. It is an excellent compromise. You provide high quality transit service, you relieve congestion, and you do something that will probably be at an acceptable cost to the taxpayers. It is a program that would pass as a referendum. I don’t think you would get any serious opposition to it.

“Five out of seven Metro districts voted no to light rail by very convincing margins. We have had four referendums in a row in this region. In every single referendum the ‘no’ vote has gone up and the ‘yes’ vote has gone down. At the rate we’re going, every Metro district is going to vote no within the next decade. I think the political message is there. The public is disillusioned. They don’t believe the stuff about reducing congestion because they can see visibly that it doesn’t work. The problem on the Banfield wouldn’t have occurred if light rail had worked.

“As far as pollution and fossil fuels, the reports and studies -- including those Metro itself produced -- show that the effect of light rail is to double the number who drive to transit. You increase auto trips, you increase VMT, the report on the Banfield rails shows that very clearly. So you are not really reducing fossil fuel use. Also, the energy used to generate electricity to run the light rail in this region -- any new source of electric power since the 1970s -- has been coal or other fossil fuels. You have to produce three times as much electricity at the generating plant as you need at the end of it to run light rail. I think an objective analysis, such as that done by the congressional budget office in years past, will show that you are really not reducing pollution and you are really not reducing energy by going to a light rail system. There are cheaper, better alternatives.”

Councilor Washington introduced Carolyn Tomei, Mayor of Milwaukie.

Cathy Dawson, 8337 SE Floral Ct., Milwaukie, OR 97267: “I voted no on the North/South light rail, but I decided to try to be part of the solution as I am a believer in public transportation. I decided to get involved in the process and started by attending meetings after the election. It has been a real eye opener to the political process and a rather discouraging one at that.

“Some of us are not quite so sure of the assurances that you were just giving that you do not intend to push light rail. At the very first post-election meeting in November, Earl Blumenauer stated that in 1994, voters approved a light rail measure that included a different route. He said if we went back to that route, we could probably just go ahead and build it without another vote. The Oregonian, on November 13, called his statement an intriguing thought. Out here, we thought it was more of an in-your-face-insulting thought.

“At that same meeting, Patricia McCaig, who ran Metro’s campaign, was angry that voters dared to vote down her project. She stated that the problem was that the measure was at the end of the ballot after many other measures, and that voters were just too tired by the time they got to it, so they voted no. She said we will need to remember the placement the next time. It was very insulting. Apparently she does not consider the voters intelligent enough to have studied and discussed the measure before they walked into the voting booth, and to have made up their minds in spite of her ads.

“At the next meeting, public input was accepted. An incident occurred that was another one of those ‘in-your-face’ things. Someone came up to one of you to whisper a message in your ear. This was while a citizen was talking to you. So the committee member listened to the messenger, while the citizen was turned off by that committee member.

“So the first issue in solving transportation problems is one of attitude by Metro. We have said no to light rail. Accept it and look to other solutions for transportation problems. The big moan seems to be that Federal money will be lost. Just because you were going to be able to get it doesn’t make it right.

“Some of the reasons we voted against it are one, the route. We don’t want it dividing Milwaukie, and we doubt that a route that goes from Clackamas Town Center to Downtown is going to diminish some of the major traffic jams in this area. It does nothing for the traffic on I-205, where apparently, according to The Oregonian half of Clackamas County workers go to Washington County. Two, lack of flexibility. Rail is immovable. A non-productive bus route can be changed to another area. Three, most of us felt that the return did not equal the cost.

“I ask you to find other solutions. Most of all, show courteous attentiveness and respect to the citizens. Voters not only vote on these measures, but also for your individual positions. Perhaps we really do have some good ideas. I myself would like to work toward a solution. As long as it is not light rail.”

Michael Wilson, 6428 SE Division, Portland, OR 97206: “I am a member of the Libertarian Party. I became interested in transit because my wife is disabled. When you look at transit in Portland or in most cities in America through the eyes of disabled people, you see something that is entirely different than what those of us who are fully functional see.

“In looking for solutions for transit problems in our region, we should take a hard look at opening the transit market to a variety of services and providers. In his book, When Work Disappears, sociologist William Judias Wilson says the lack of transit is the one of the factors contributing to urban poverty. In the Portland region, we have a number of areas and times of day where service is lacking or non-existent. The Rivergate industrial area, which is adjacent to one of our lowest income neighborhoods receives limited services. Improved service to this area might benefit those who live in Northeast Portland adjacent to the Rivergate area. Additionally, there is little or no service late at night. Disabled people need to call by 5 PM the evening before; those of us who are not disabled do not need to do so. Try getting home from the grocery store with four bags of food and a child or two in tow on the bus. If you need to go to the airport, there are about 50 listings in the phone book. If you need to go to the grocery store, you have about 10 options -- 1/10 the number. In Portland, the well-to-do have town car services. The rest of us don’t have much at all.

“Jane Jacobs, the preeminent author of Urban Studies, has suggested that we open the market and allow what essentially would be a return to the jitneys that existed in America after the invention of the automobile until they were outlawed. In New York City, about 5,000 privately owned and operated vans are in operation offering door-to-door service for a fee of about $1 a trip. Miami, Florida also has an extensive service of this type.

“Last year the Brookings Institute published a book, Curb Rights. This book looks at the history of transit services in America and offers some of the best new ideas for dealing with problems. I further urge you to give serious consideration to opening the transit market. It is time for some grass roots solutions to these problems. Whether it is bus, private taxi, subscription cab, or ride-sharing cab, or jitney, we need to open the market. It is time to make Portland a livable city for all its citizens, and make Portland a city that works for all of us. It costs the taxpayer virtually nothing to open the market.”

Chuck Williams, 16112 NE 22nd Ave, Ridgefield WA, 98642: “I’m a research development engineer. Light rail in effect involves me. We voted it down. I remember when I rode the old steam engines coming out to Fall Butte for a nickel, on what you call light rail. Light rail is really heavy rail. It is 170 pounds per foot, which is pretty heavy rail.

“Way back when, you were not here. We voted to put in the Tunaville [sp?] Trolley that used to cover East Portland, South Portland, and West Portland. It didn’t come in North Portland, a lot of us had to walk into town. It came across the tracks into Vancouver, and out almost to where the fairground is today. This light rail takes up a lot of land. The keyhole for putting the track through the mountain in the tunnel will tell you the keyhole it takes to pass through the air. If you put this light rail in an elevated position such as we do in our monorail system -- there are many monorail systems. I am representing one, but it is not included in this [chart] because it is private. The system that is light rail is still track, nails, and ties. Working as a candy dancer[?] as a kid, I know what those are.

“Today most of you people are not my age. I am 88. This track you’re talking about takes up a huge proportion of your foot traffic. If we take the 42,000 people that were killed in America last year and buried them in 6’10” plot in the ground, I can put in 5,942 of monorail track for that footprint. This makes me think you gentlemen haven’t looked at other conditions of transportation that is available for a much lower price than light rail. Light rail is two little trolleys. I looked the other evening at how many passengers were on each train coming through your new tunnel. It is not really profitable. Somebody is going to have to pay for that.

“If you put in light rail and it comes across to Vancouver, and comes into the fairgrounds, [you] are going to take my property, my home, my land. I have two acres in the view part where the light rail is going. For the power of act of domain, they can take that away from this old man.”

Bill Scott, 3825 SE Adams, Milwaukie, OR 97222: “I am a retired chief engineer. In view of the recent light rail vote, it is interesting when the real facts of the story are compared. It is said Washington County wants the train, and the people against the train are all in the fringes of Clackamas County. In fact, the vote was Clackamas County -- 43.7% yes, Washington County -- 43.9% percent yes. It is interesting that Councilors Park and McLain both have districts with significant light rail service, yet their district had the lowest percentage of yes votes of any Metro districts.

“In August 1998, at a transit forum in Oak Grove, Clackamas County Commissioner Ed Lindquist said, ‘If light rail is voted down, light rail is dead.’ We have fulfilled our part of the deal, why not just let it die? Recently, we heard that HOV lanes may be added to our freeways. If we add HOV lanes, does it not make sense to hold off on airport MAX until a decision on HOV lanes is made?”

Terry Parker, 1527 NE 65th Ave, Portland, OR 97213: “A comment made at the last hearing inspired me to come tonight. Don’t destroy neighborhoods before you rebuild them. From 1974 to 1978, I served on a citizens advisory committee for the Banfield project, and I chaired the committee for the last two of those years. The committee was made up of a cross section of working class people, studying an array of travel modes and options.

“Today, predetermined conclusions are flashed before hand-picked special interest committees and corporate executive committees for support and final details. An example is the South/North Downtown Alignment Committee. For the Banfield project, citizens recommended light rail and initiated the idea of combining it with freeway widening, making the total project cost-effective. Apply that today, and a new MAX bridge across the Columbia could include vehicle lanes for increased capacity.

“A primary self-imposed goal of the Banfield committee was to minimize property taking. The Hollywood Station site, the location identified by the CAC, was public property. The design of the 37th Avenue westbound on-ramp to the freeway, designed with help from the committee, saved a row of houses on 7th Street across the freeway. However, the proposed South/North route was like the light rail version of the Mount Hood Freeway, bulldozing through neighborhoods. Light rail to Gresham along Burnside Street, all in public right-of-way, already in public ownership, was identified by the Banfield CAC as an extension of the original light rail concept that only went to Gateway.

“Today, light rail could be accommodated between the sidewalks of Interstate Avenue without a lot of property taking. The use of facilities already in place, like the Steel Bridge, was a priority for the Banfield project. Extending tracks along First Avenue crossing the Hawthorne Bridge would result in the same cost-effective savings today. At Lloyd Center, Holladay Park sits between the stores and the tracks. Benson High School students stream across the freeway bridge to use it. Downtown light/rail does not need to be rammed up the gut of the city on the mall or stop at PSU’s front door to attract ridership. Bricks along Morrisson and Yamhill Streets were paid for with the local improvement district, not part of the total cost to taxpayers.

“The point I am trying to make with this comparison is, the choices made on the Banfield project were citizen driven. South/North is political engineering to create social engineering. The citizen involvement process should start before any planning starts, and the advisory committee members should not be excluded because their views are not directly aligned with the planners themselves.

“Finally, if you are willing to step back and allow the process to work from the citizens’ point of view from the citizens up -- the bottom up, and not take all your cues from big business, downtown, and special interests, a better region will emerge. You have a real opportunity here, and I hope that you use it to partner with average citizens, and change the way you conduct the public’s business.”

Bill Brown, 4131 SE Concord Rd, Portland, OR 97267: “The Oak Lodge Community Council has been monitoring Metro’s activities for a number of years. In recent years, our monitoring has increased. The following is a synopsis of the discussion that was unanimously approved by our Council at its December 2, 1998 meeting:

“‘Metro has become ingrained in certain thought patterns and is not listening to what the public is thinking and saying. Metro either needs a new transportation committee or a new vision to start listening and looking at new ideas. It’s time to start with a blank pad of paper, lots of pencils and ears and mind open. A major issue in Clackamas County is jobs. It makes absolutely no sense to allow more housing within the UGB without the parallel identification of jobs in proximity to housing. The current pattern of housing in Clackamas County with jobs in Washington County only aggravates the transportation problem. Not only does it not make sense, it violates one of LCDC’s goals. The Council also believes that Tri-Met should stop the construction of airport light rail until it determines that this light rail provides more benefit than widening I-205 to add lanes, including an HOV lane. We believe that the airport light rail serves very few for the intense capital cost. The reality is that people still travel in the automobile to a much greater extent than light rail. The airport light rail does little to solve the problems of the majority. Reduction of traffic congestion does not have to take years and many millions of dollars. Metro has to open their thinking and develop new alternatives. For example, when the Hawthorne Bridge reopens, it could be reserved exclusively for buses and HOV lanes at rush hour. We also believe that governments do not need to be in the intelligent transportation business. It carries significant capital expenditures, and within a few years, commercial companies will be offering these services. In fact, area radio stations are already supplying that data.’”

Dick Jones, 3205 SE Vineyard Rd, Oak Grove, OR 97267: “I received a purple card that says, ‘What’s next?’ and ‘What are we willing to pay for?’ Both are good questions and must be weighed carefully by our region. What’s next? Let us move more slowly and add people to transportation panels that are not just the same old committee. I believe Metro must bring into the process those who foster other than main stream ideas.

“The big mistake government can make is to assume that ‘no’ votes are anti-government votes. Another big campaign takes place after a lot of public dollars are spent on researching another concept that lacks that one key ingredient: public support. Public support is not there for light rail, or to continue to put out transportation plans as in Clackamas County where 40% of the dollars were going to help 2%+ of the users. Whatever funding mechanism we use, the one common denominator must be voters. Voters have demonstrated repeatedly -- no more foolish transportation taxes.

“I am a member of the Oak Lodge Community Council, the recognized planning organization in Clackamas County. On January 12, we held a discussion on transit related issue -- the McLoughlin Corridor Plan. From that meeting, people continue to feel the automobile will be our primary mode of transportation. Density is a real concern. People relate increased density to increased crime. This position is backed by discussions with police officers. People do not want mixed use buildings where housing is over stores.

“There was an interesting question regarding bike-related costs and transit. A man asked how many people thought cyclists should pay their fair share of costs. Out of an audience of 68 people, only six people voted no. People also wanted a separation of bike paths from our busy streets.

“Another part of the issue “what’s next?” is our environment. I saw an ad about light rail that the train is very clean and environmentally friendly. But the question comes, friendly to who? The power used by train comes out of the same wire that we use power at home from. These energy sources in the Pacific Northwest are significant sources of pollution. In November 1998, tidepool.org, an environmental website, had an article about the coal fire generating plant in Centralia Washington. It said the plant is responsible for the same amount of emissions as 2.5 million cars per year would produce. This past Sunday, The Oregonian said the Northwest is going to be faced with a power shortage by the year 2004-6. Clearly, the electricity is not as environmentally pollution free as we might think. An additional environmental issue that needs some careful evaluation by the scientific community is ozone and NOX creation from electric arcing as the power is transferred to the moving train from the overhead wire. Perhaps now is the time Tri-Met should be asking the United States Department of Transportation or some of our university groups to study the issue of ozone and NOX generated by arcing. People want less congestion, better transit, but most of all, they want common sense solutions.”

John Aroyo, 1605 116th Ave, NE #208, Bellevue, WA 98004: “I am based in Bellevue, and I assist dozens of municipalities and hundreds of civil and transportation engineers in the four Northwest states for the cement industry. He said the new Oregon Highway Plan Draft, overlooks a micro-matter that will eventually determine the way the overall system works, and that is the pavement material choice. As long as studded tires stay on roads, and as long as asphalt is used in high traffic areas, public agencies will continue to be drained by expensive maintenance. However, if long-term investment, and if pavement longevity is thought about, concrete will be chosen, and agencies will gradually reduce the billions that are spent on asphalt repair and maintenance. It is the pavement material that makes the system work.

“TEA-21 funding provides a short period of time for Oregon communities to make wise investments in the transportation system. Only concrete pavements allow a contractor to get in, do the work, get out and stay out for a long period of time. There are many cities that have 40, 50, and 60 years on old concrete that has barely been touched.”

Eugene Schoenhert, 13280 SE Fernridge Ave, Milwaukie, OR 97222: “I read an article about Metro not listening. Councilor Atherton, when you were out campaigning, you wanted to listen to what people need. I would suggest you look out to the freeway, and look at what people actually need. We don’t need light rail, we need more roads. It is obvious that the car is not going away. You need to provide for the people, and represent what the people want. People are going to use the car. You need to widen I-205. Your group is part of the problem. You are taking money that could have been used for roads and pushing it to light rail.”

Bill Brandon, 12915 SE King Rd, Happy Valley, OR 97236: “I am the city administrator for the city of Happy Valley, and a member of the Clackamas County Economic Development Commission. A year the Clackamas County Commissioners came to the Economic Development Commission and said that in recent years we have put two tax measures on the ballot and the citizens are not voting for them. The Commissioners asked the Economic Development Commission to find out what the people want. They came up with a program called ‘Operation Hearing,’ a bottom up approach to finding solutions. What you are doing tonight is on the right track to engaging public support.”

Walter Garvin, 4724 SE Thiessen, Milwaukie, OR 97267: “I find that when I have gone to light rail meetings, there is a lack of understanding about the [transportation needs of the county.] Light rail does not address 50% of the transportation needs in the county. People need to be able to get from point A to point B. Express runs should be added to the existing light rail lines. You have said it cannot be done, however, I have seen other systems in Europe where it is done. You need to work with engineers to accomplish this.”

Marie Phillippi, 4014 SE 9th, Portland, OR 97202: “I live one block off of McLoughlin. I worked on a CAC for six years on North/South light rail before it was submitted for a vote. I was very disappointed that the measure failed, because I felt it would give some people a chance to get out of their cars and give us an alternative way to get to work. The measure passed in Multnomah County by a large margin. It is my neighbors that stand to lose by its demise -- Sellwood, Eastmoreland, and Brooklyn, because they are all direct routes from Milwaukie. If people don’t think they use McLoughlin, they should live where I live.

“Since it was voted down, it is time to look for other solutions. I haven’t heard a whole lot tonight. One solution of new roads is absolutely the opposite of what we’re all about. New roads would destroy as many homes and neighborhoods as any light rail would ever do. Expanding and widening existing roads would have the same impact -- it would destroy neighborhoods, houses, homes. I would like to see HOV lanes on McLoughlin. There should be more buses on McLoughlin. There should be a toll road at the city limit of Portland during commuter hours. Then people would think to use other options. Please investigate the rubber dust that is polluting our neighborhood.”

Ed Zumwalt, 10888 SE 29th, Milwaukie, OR 97222: “I attended the Beaverton Listening Post and I was impressed by the number and quality of suggestions that were presented. More and cleaner buses, river buses and taxis, jitneys, full use of the existing infrastructure, heavy rail from Vancouver to Eugene and in Washington County, commercial lanes for trucks, HOV lanes, electric buses and trolleys in certain areas, vans and shuttles, staggering work shifts for large industries with incentives, bicycle and pedestrian only areas with periphery parking. I read about Presiding Officer Monroe’s suggestion for light rail on wheels, and Councilor Washington’s suggestion for congestion pricing.

“Mr. John Charles has recommended privatizing Tri-Met. Nothing has been sacrosanct, and his ideas should be taken seriously. If his ideas may have the impact he states, there should be an immediate analysis about the efficiencies of privatizing Tri-Met.

“Unfortunately, none of these ideas are new. They have been around for years, but not one has been implemented. Our whole transportation has been paralyzed for a slavish, single-minded, tunnel visioned obsession with light rail -- the great Savior. Even after the rail’s November defeat, it is again arising from the ashes. Comments have been made about light voter turnout, too many other competing money measures.

“After the election, the comment was made that there is no Plan B. This is scary. Out of all the ideas presented, some of them should already be in place. There is no indication anything has ever been done. They should all be analyzed and implemented if possible.”

Rob Kappa, 12143 SE 38th, Milwaukie, OR 97222: “I don’t think Metro should be doing this job alone. You should call on the cities, counties, and special districts to help. We as your partners should be doing our part in our respective neighborhoods and CPOs. With the appointment of our third county commissioner, you should find the door open to you.”

Councilor Washington said Mr. Kappa is one of the City Councilors from the city of Milwaukie.

Lynn Peterson, 534 SW 3rd Ave, Portland, OR 97034: “I represent the Coalition for a Livable Future, which is an organization made up of about 50 organizations of housing, transportation, environment, open space, and ecumenical religious institutions, all concerned with urban issues in this region. I present to you the transportation plan for everybody. What we have done as an organization is gone through the Regional Transportation Plan draft, and looked through all the thousands of projects that each of the local jurisdictions has submitted to Metro for funding. All of the projects we have supported support communities, not drive-through communities. They all support getting children to school safely, being able to bike to the store safely, and being able to have a choice in getting to work.

“As a former highway engineer, I can tell you that building our way out of congestion will not work. That has been the national experience, as in Seattle, San Francisco, Denver. We need transportation choices. The Surface Transportation Policy Institute out of DC did a study using the Texas Transportation Institute, an engineering center. Seventy different cities across the nation were studied. They found that no matter how much you invest in highways you do not get less congestion. There is so much induced traffic, such a demand that you can keep adding more and more and you will never see an end to the demand. We need choices. We ask that you consider our proposal.”

Councilor Atherton: “I am interested in the Rapid Bus from Milwaukie and Oregon City to Vancouver, via I-205. I have heard repeatedly that there is a demand for increased use of I-205, and wonder why Tri-Met has not done so.”

Ms. Peterson: “These are all projects that Metro is looking at right now as part of the Regional Transportation Plan draft. I believe we need to provide funds to provide service from suburb to suburb.”

Wes Wanvig, 7705 SE Harmony Rd, Milwaukie, OR 97222: (Mr. Wanvig placed a large piece of scrap metal on the testimony table.) “Tonight I can’t help wonder if being here is really worthwhile. If it’s really doing any good. When I was working to get us the right to vote on light rail -- that was Measure 32, you remember it was the politicians that were pro-light rail that was doing everything in their power to keep us to get the basic right to vote. The number one reason why people would refuse to sign my petition to put Measure 32 on the ballot was because, and I quote verbatim, ‘the damn bureaucrats will do whatever they want no matter how we vote.’ I want you to know that the Oregon Supreme Court has ruled that the ultimate form of communication is the dollar. That is the United States dollar. Now, I hope you gentlemen disagree with that. I certainly disagree with that, but that’s what we gotta live with. If the ultimate form of communication is the dollar, then we have twice told you no. Still you are trying to impose a light rail agenda on our community. Why won’t you listen? The phrase has been, ‘three strikes, you’re out.’ In 1995, Clark County voted no. 1996 Measure 32, the people of Oregon voted no by an 81 or 87,000 majority. In 1998, 26-74, we again, the people of the local area voted no. Please listen. We don’t want light rail in our area. Now. As a business man, if one of my department’s heads came to me and said I want to spend 50 or 60 or even 90% of the budget on 2% of the problem, he’d be fired. That’s just nonsense. So should anybody else who supports light rail, because that’s basically what you’re looking at.

“Now, put the negative aside for a minute please, with the coming history, I believe we are going to see more and more electric cars. I’m excited about that because I live in the country, and I like to see clear air. I believe we need to be making way for more electric powered vehicles, HOV/electric. It’s exciting. And that’s great. I’m a bicyclist. I’d love to see more bicycle lanes. But, as we are seeing more telecommuting, I believe that the traffic, and I could be wrong on this, but I believe we will not see a major increase in traffic problems.

“Nevertheless, the light rail that is widely being fought for is an obsolete joke. Now, we can resolve our differences with ballots or bullets. And I certainly hope you’ll listen to the ballot. But I brought this piece of scrap iron tonight to demonstrate how vulnerable and how ridiculous the light rail is.

[3-Minute timer rings]

Councilor Washington: “Could you get ready to wrap it up, please?”

Mr. Wanvig: “Sure. Very simply, this could be welded to a light rail in about 30 seconds. It will shut down your light rail, and we don’t want light rail. If that’s what it takes. In conclusion, we don’t want light rail anywhere near Harmony Road. We don’t want light rail anywhere near 82nd because it will cause major traffic congestion.

Councilor Washington: “Can you please wrap it up?”

Mr. Wanvig: “Certainly. I love my community. I love my home and business. We deserve to not have light rail be imposed on us. We don’t want you destroying our communities the way you did the people of Glen Fair on Burnside, where you absolutely destroyed their community or the livability of their community by imposing light rail. Thank you.”

Councilor Park: “May I ask the gentleman a question. Mr. Wanvig, you are in favor of electric cars....”

Mr. Wanvig: “Absolutely.”

Councilor Park: “.... that are being used in California and other locations. Do you have a proposal on how to pay for the road systems underneath those electric cars?”

Mr. Wanvig: “Okay, let me stand a little bit corrected. I am in favor of self-contained electric vehicles. I’m not implying that the government should be paying for the lines to be laid under the highways.”

Councilor Park: “I’m talking about the asphalt. Who would pay for the asphalt?”

Mr. Wanvig: “Everyone would pay for the asphalt. We’re currently paying about $.45 per gallon, and I think it will be a long time before we have electric tracks on the highway. [Unintelligible.]”

Councilor Washington: “Okay. Are you going to be here for a little bit?”

Mr. Wanvig: “I can be.”

Councilor Washington: “Okay, after we are finished with the hearing, maybe they might want to ask some questions....”

Councilor Kvistad: “I just want to check out Wes’s welding skills.”

[Audience laughter]

Mr. Wanvig: “I’m not a professional welder....”

Chair Kvistad: “Oh, I know.”

Mr. Wanvig: “The reason I brought this stuff is because it takes about 90 seconds to do that, and if I can do that in about 90 seconds you guys are in trouble.”

Councilor Washington: “Thank you Wes. Now that we know your plans.”

Jerry Foy, 15242 SE Fair Oaks, Milwaukie, OR 97267: “I also am opposed to light rail. I am totally in favor of public transit. I see a lot of ways transportation can be improved by enhancing bus service, and increasing the circular flow of bus service in lieu of just the spoke to the downtown CBD district. An engineer ahead of me said you cannot build yourself out of congestion. Well, let’s take a lane out of I-84, I-5, and I-205 and let’s see what happens to congestion. And at the same time, let’s add a lane, and let’s add the ability for HOV traffic to be reversed in rush hour in peak direction. That would go a long ways to solving our commute problems. The Lloyd Center is touted as a utopia of what 2040 would ultimately look like to see in the say of a split. The numbers are 17% bus/bike/walk and 83% travel by auto. There is no indication on the horizon that that number will decrease. If anything it will increase.

“The question was asked how will you pay for the asphalt to support more roads. And we need more roads. We need to support it through some sort of gas tax or support system to build the roads we need to build. I am on a committee that just reviewed the Highway Plan. I don’t think the Highway Plan is a very good document right now. I support alternative modes of travel. I am glad to see people who choose to bus/bike/walk. My job requires me to make 15 stops a day in a vehicle. The commuter who goes from work to home and back is very rare in today’s circumstances. There are too many trips and stops required. The convenience of the automobile is going to remain on the horizon as the desired mode of travel.

“When they talk about $100 million per mile to build a road -- that’s a freeway. But at the same time, I’m only talking about adding lanes, or a three lane road.”

Chair Kvistad: “Let me make one quick comment since we are talking about roads and transit funding. We have cars that are becoming more fuel efficient that is reducing the number of dollars available for renewal, replacement, and maintenance. With the gas tax remaining the same, we lose one cent per year of value that we can put to roads. If you go to electric vehicles and other options, there will be even less gas tax revenue to fund road projects. We are trying to determine how to find the dollars without massively increasing taxes. It is really difficult. If you have ideas on that, we would appreciate hearing them. We have to deal with the House and Senate on a new gas tax proposal or other road funding proposal.”

George Van Bergen, 12366 SE Guilford Dr., Milwaukie, OR 97222: “Welcome to uniquely residential rural Clackamas County. We should have Tri-Met/Metro service -- not mandates. There is a mutual Tri-Met/Metro impotence in this issue. Regarding the question, ‘What are you willing to pay for?’ For me, it’s roads. ‘What about overall transportation needs for the region?’ The answer is roads. ‘What’s next for the South/North Corridor?’ That’s the only legacy I left you was South/North -- trying to tie the Vancouver area into the process. It failed. ‘What’s next?’ What’s next is money. You are talking to the wrong people -- these are not the people who create the money, the advice on money comes from your professional lobbyist at Tri-Met who has the ear in Washington, DC and people you know in the legislature. They have the strings on the purse that have the money. You should have the ability to prevail upon those folks for us.

“The other part of the money solution effort should be that the project should be developed incrementally. We have done that with the Gresham increment, the Hillsboro, and now this is the third increment. How do we get people to go for it? You do it by creating a presentation to them that is finite, that develops a scene with an artists brush rather than a broom. It has to be incrementally to get people to like it. This means Milwaukie to Portland. Then to go 82nd -- and don’t talk about Town Center, because they don’t want light rail there. Also, don’t talk about Monterey because shoppers won’t walk from Monterey over to the Town Center.

“What ever happened to the $17 million that was allocated from the Mount Hood Freeway to put in I-205 light rail from the Airport to Town Center? Why not get it back? We’ve got the right-of-way, we have the tunnels, we have everything to put in light rail on I-205. Somebody lost it [the money].”

Michael Oberst, 4725 SE Robin Rd, Milwaukie, OR 97267: “Most of the light rail supporters I have spoken with are absolutely ignorant of the fact that this is a business deal. What it does will grandfather in high density re-zoning of the entire Metro area. This is what special interests want. Much of this is out-of-state banks. Corporations like Bechtel, Trower-Crown. I have even seen a plan that has been around since the 1980s, by one of our friends at the Pentagon -- a Pentagon company -- to totally develop Forest Park with light rail, high density housing. I have seen the blueprints for this. They are looking for political will to do it.

“As far as people thinking light rail will help density problems, it will bring in more density. It will be more dangerous for kids. I know a lot of police officers, and they tell me, expect a 300 to 500% increase in your crime rate. High density would allow them to implement any kind of zoning in your neighborhood. You don’t mix industrial and residential and all kinds of zoning together. We pride ourselves on the livability of the area. If you do this, it is just suicide, and it won’t be worth living here.

“They mention the McLoughlin Corridor. They want to run this down McLoughlin. They will take out businesses, gas stations, and put a lot of people out of their livelihood. It is just ludicrous. The Harvard Study says it is. They even want to fill in areas along the river that are watersheds to do their development. When light rail failed miserably in Los Angeles, they put their buses back on and it helped immensely.

“As far as solutions, there is a brilliant man named Joe Newman who invented electric engines that are self-propelled. There are alternatives. This is not a green issue, it is a cold-blooded business deal. You and we are caught in the middle of it. The big boys are playing their game to grab tax payer money. Nobody rides the thing compared to what its going to cost.”

[The remainder of this document was transcribed by an staff member who was not in attendance at the listening post.]

Tad Winiecki, 16810 NE 40th Ave., Vancouver, WA 98686: Thank you for another opportunity to talk to you about personal rapid transit. Last week I told you about how small vehicles are most economical than large vehicles when you don’t have to pay the driver. Tonight I’m going to tell you the meaning of personal rapid transit--no wait, non-stop, always available, the motto of my company, Higher-Way Transit Research. I would like to explain what it means and how it is possible for a public transit system to achieve it. No wait means it is a demand-response system, like taxis waiting for travelers leaving an airport. The PRT vehicles wait for the riders, not the other way around. The Taxi-2000 system, for example, had a performance specification of negligible station wait in off-peak hours with peak-hour waits of less than 30 seconds for 80% of riders and less than 2 minutes for 99% of riders. Non-stop means there are no stop signs nor traffic signals at intersections, and the vehicle does not stop until it reaches the station where the rider wants to go. This is like a taxi that takes you from one rest stop to another on an interstate freeway. All of the stations are off-line, like interstate highway rest areas. This feature means that the average speed of the vehicles is close to the maximum line speed. PRT vehicles may have an average speed of 40 miles per hour, twice that of light rail and buses, with a maximum line speed of only 45 miles per hour. I should mention that in my system, maximum line speed is 100 miles per hour. Always available means that the system never shuts down. Riders can use it 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. This is economically feasible because there are not drivers, no schedules, and never a large percentage of empty seats traveling the system. The Morgantown, West Virginia, PRT system has been operating since 1975, with 99.8% reliability. Now, repeat after me: no wait, non-stop, always available. I am sure you have many questions about the viability of Personal Rapid Transit for the Metro area. My Higher-Way System is still in the preliminary design stage, and I cannot give you cost and ridership figures for it. But I brought a copy of detailed cost materials presented to the Seattle Elevated Transportation Company by J. Edward Anderson of the Taxi 2000 Corporation. He gives many details and show that PRT systems can be profitable. With a profitable system, you won’t have to ask the taxpayers for money to pay back bond debt.

James Dryden, 6934 SE 122 Drive, Portland, OR 97236: My question may not be answerable by you, but maybe by city council. I have asked many people about the article Sunday in the Oregonian on the streetcar from the Pearl District to Good Samaritan to Portland State is absolutely surprised. We never heard anything and it’s not a Tri-Met Project. Where did this start? How far along is it? What makes it feasible?

(Don’t know who answered).It’s the City of Portland’s Trolley Car Project. It’s a private project by the City of Portland.

Mr. Dryden said this would be the first time since the 1940 that the city has been in the rail business. He asked if the panel was as surprised as the public was. He said he couldn’t believe it would be all set for $50 million, at $2.5 million a car, without anyone ever hearing about it.

Councilor Ed Washington said this has been talked about publicly for some time. He suggested Mr. Dryden give Commissioner Charlie Hales a call to discuss this.

Mr. Dryden said he commented on the airport light rail. He said when the project was first suggested, many articles in the paper questioned the feasibility of the project, asking questions about transferring luggage at Gateway, about not being able to have the lines run on the main line because it would clog everything, none of those questions have been answered. Is it pretty well fixed because of giving the land to Bechtel that they get all this other stuff done that cuts the cost. Is that what is driving it?

Councilor Ed Washington asked Mr. Feeney to give Mr. Dryden the name of someone at Tri-Met who could give Mr. Dryden information on the airport light rail. Mr. Feeney said he should call Jan Shaeffer at 239-2123.

Ross Williams, 426 SE 19th, Portland, OR: With Citizens for Sensible Transportation, a member of the coalition for a Livable Future. He said he had attended all four hearings. He said he wanted to talk about what he had heard. He said his organization supported light rail. He said it was involved down in Milwaukie, talking with people about it. He said these hearings were not about reviving light rail to Milwaukie. He said he had not heard anyone at any hearing suggest that that should happen. He said it is clear the voters of Clackamas County do not want it. On the other hand, Multnomah County has said yes to light rail every time. He said there are individuals who do not support light rail, but no one at the north/northeast hearing suggested widening I-205 and put more pollution into the community. No one wanted more traffic from Vancouver. He said people want better transit, people want better connectivity out in Washington County. Everyone recognizes that if you have one highway--Highway 217--that is the only way to get from one end of the county to the other, that highway will be congested no matter how wide it is. If you can get to the grocery store only by getting onto a single arterial, that arterial will be congested no matter what you do. He said a former traffic engineer had spoken earlier that evening, who said you cannot build your way out of congestion. He said many studies have shown that. He common sense suggests that if you widen a road there would be more room for cars. But experience shows that room would fill up with cars that would not have been there otherwise making trips they would not have made otherwise. People would choose to live further from their jobs and people would decide to travel further to get to the store. So widening roads actually makes more traffic and more congestion, not just where you widen the road but all around it as people try to get to those roads. He said this a message that people need to be educated about. He said that is what he had heard most in the hearings. What seems like common sense to most people, isn’t. That makes [the job of policy makers] difficult. The voters think in terms of common sense, and they are not going to listen to detailed explanations about what seems to make sense to them won’t work. In wrapping up, he said he had not heard is that none of the people from the business community had made their case for their transportation needs. He said these hearings are for people who have no other way of expressing themselves. The unfortunate part of that is that he and the other people who have attended the hearings have not had the opportunity to hear from the downtown business community, why they think the transit mall is broken and needs to be fixed. We have not heard from the east side business community why they need better transit. We have not heard from the Port of Portland why major financial resource for the region needs better access in and out of town. As we sit and listen, we are leaving out a major part of the discussion. The business community needs to be told that even though they might be meeting with policy-makers in private, they also need to be making their case in public. Only then will be have a regional, grass-roots consensus that the voters can vote on and not another train wreck.

Jim Gorter, 8041 SW 8th, Portland, OR 97219: He was a member of the City Club of Portland’s Study Committee that reviewed the light rail prior to the last election. He said the committee did a lot of work and a lot of research on both sides of the issue. He said that although everyone had questions and concerns about specific aspects of the plan, overall everyone felt that the light rail plan was a key part of the transportation system of Portland or of the Metropolitan Region. He encouraged them to not forget light rail and to include it in some form in the plans. He also said he had heard a lot of comments in favor of expanded road systems. He said he would bet that if you put forward a plan to the voters for roads with as much details as was presented for light rail, with costs and impacts on communities, that would be defeated by a much larger margin than the light rail plan was defeated. Finally, one of the things the transportation plan can and must do is help shape the development of the metropolitan region. He said transportation goes hand in hand with land use to shape our communities.

Chair Washington closed the public hearing. He then asked for comments from the panel and opened the floor to questions from the public.

Councilor Kight said he had heard some very thoughtful, provocative ideas. He said one thing seemed clear and that was some sort of consensus was being sought on what people wanted to do. He said the issue we are facing is very complex. He said there is no easy fix. He said we already know we cannot build our way out of congestion. He said it would be a combination of transit--maybe not light rail. Perhaps it would be a private bus serving the east county. What should be looked at is opening certain segments of the transportation system up to bid. He said they also needed to look at where the cars need to go on the freeway. He said the cars that are on the freeway have nice stereo systems, air-conditioning and so forth. He suggested adding some of those amenities to the buses--adding televisions and modem hook-ups--so commuters could be productive while they travel. He said commuters should be treated on transit the same way they are treated on a plane. He said there are many different things we need to look at. He said money is set aside for a project like that. He said the public has offered a lot of good ideas for transportation that should be communicated.

Dick Feeney, Tri-Met, thanked everyone for coming to the hearing. He said he appreciated all the hearings. He said all the comments have been thought-provoking and some have been very inventive. He said he a number of people from Tri-Met were present and had been sharing the records of the hearings with the executives and professionals at Tri-Met.

Councilor Bragdon thanked those who participated. He said he particularly appreciated those who said what they do want and have positive ideas. He said he agreed with Councilor Washington who said there have probably been “too many eggs in the light rail basket.” He said a number of people have asked “what part of no do you not understand?” He said he had been in favor of light rail and he still was for some places. To pretend otherwise would insult people. But he had heard a lot of different parts of “no,” and some of that actually makes sense. He said it was not as simple as a big “yes” or a big “no.” Some folks said no, not if it does not go to Oregon City. Others said no, not if it means sacrificing bus service. Some people said no because they always say no. He said there are lots of different forms of no, and he appreciated people articulating exactly what they meant by that. He said he had not heard, however, even from those who advocated spending more money on highways, offers to give up their house to widen a road. He had not heard anyone offer to be the first to cut down the trees in Westmoreland Park along McLoughlin. He said he appreciated hearing all the different views. He said he was disappointed not to have heard here about use of the river, which he had heard in Beaverton. He said the river is a natural corridor, and given what’s going on in downtown Milwaukie and downtown Oregon City, we need to look at that. It’s time to look at new things.

Councilor Monroe said he has been in his job as Presiding Officer for two weeks. He said four of the seven Metro Councilors were not Metro Councilors a year ago. He said the last election cycle brought a major change, he thought for the better. He said he thought the people would find that this council really wants to listen to people. He said that is why so many of them were there that night. He said many governments including Metro have not listened to the people enough. He thanked Councilor Washington for calling these hearings. He said among the many good ideas is that several people referred to the fact that there is an inextricable tie between transportation and land use. Any change in transportation will affect land use. Any change in land use will affect transportation. They are two sides of the same coin. He said as the council works its way through decisions about the urban growth boundary and the 2040 Plan, he asked that the people remember that those two sides of the same coin had to be considered together.

Councilor Kvistad said that Metro has a completely new transportation committee. He said this presents a great opportunity. He said Councilor Washington started some new outreach efforts. He is the chair of the Joint Policy Advisory Committee (JPACT) and Councilor Washington is a member. JPACT is the body that takes all the federal money as well state money and tries to allocate the projects.

He said he was pleased to see George Van Bergen in the audience. He said when he first joined the council, he and George was his “cell-mate.” He and George shared a 4X6 space. He said he learned his Metro ethics from George. He said people would see the ideas that have been collected at these listening posts would be packaged, sent out for citizen review, then sent to the regional committee that allocates funds. He said right now there are about $350 million in programs that need to be funded, but only $75 million in funds. Most of the projects are road and bridge-repair work, including work on Sunnyside Rd., the Sunrise Corridor, I-5 and 217 in Washington County. He said it would be a tough few months. He encouraged people to contact legislators for and ask them to support a road-repair package.

Councilor Atherton noted the testimony of Mr. Jerry Foy who spoke about circumferencial systems rather than a spoke system. He said he had hoped Mr. Troy would still be there to elaborate on that. He said that has a lot of meaning to people in Clackamas County. He said they looked at I-205 as a major facility. He said they had always thought a light rail would be on that alignment and that there would be some HOV facilities there. He noted Mr. Garvin’s testimony on express lines on light rail. He asked if that had been looked at.

Dick Feeney said they had talked about that. He said there are some engineers who might want to comment on that. He asked Gerald Fox to comment on the feasibility of that.

Gerald Fox said one of the problems with the light rail system is that the trains are tied into traffic signals, so you have one train that stops in a section and another that runs through, you tend to get into difficult situations concerning safety. The other problem is that people get onto a train and then find it doesn’t stop at the station they wanted to get off at. He said with the trains running every ten minutes, some stations would have trains only every twenty minutes instead of every ten. He said there are some places where this would work. In places like Chicago, where they have very long subway lines, they are able to run that way.

Councilor Atherton said that in other words, another set of tracks would need to be laid to accommodate the express trains. He said that in Japan, the transportation system was very efficient and well-though out. The trains were on time. You could set your clocks by them. He said a number of people had talked with him in the past about pollution and the number of particulates, although it wasn’t talked about much tonight. He said that kind of pollution is a subsidy to the automobile. He said the subsidy per automobile is about $24 per automobile. He (talked about subsidies, but I didn’t get the point....I couldn’t hear well enough to understand this.)

Karl Rohde said this is his second listening post. He said this evening’s suggestion that we put the engineers in charge and not the elected officials is an intriguing one. He said he would be interested in seeing what me might get out of that. He said there is always a threat of what we as elected officials and representatives in our decision-making process, it disturbs me when I hear it. There was a references to choices, to our choice here, as being between ballots and bullets. When things like that are brought up it disturbs me greatly that we would even consider that as a way of decision-making in this country. Also, a reference to domestic terrorism in shutting down civil transportation links. I hope that we as a civil society can avoid even bringing up in discussions such as this. There is a great amount of interest in how the funds for transportation--Councilor Kvistad brought up how much we lost in value as a result of increased efficiency and also inflation. It is in pennies per year. Nobody is really interested in keeping up with that. We would have to increase it a penny every year just to keep up with what we’re doing now. Two cents a year, you start catching up on needed maintenance. At three cents a year you start catching up on adding value and capacity and modernization. We are moving toward vehicles that perhaps won’t rely on gasoline at all with electric vehicles. I think they would be fantastic for the environment, but if you no longer have gas-driven cars and you have a gasoline tax paying for your transportation system, you’re in a bit of a bind. I would hope we would be willing to consider as a region the proposal brought up in the past the VMT tax. You pay according to how much you drive. If you drive a lot you pay more. If you choose not to drive at all, you don’t pay any of that tax.

An interesting issue was brought up in North Portland and that was the issue of balance. No matter what we do on a transportation system, it is important that we consider the creation of a balanced system. When I consider a transportation system, I don’t just consider it for the automobile user. There is a significant segment of our system, the youth, limited by law in their ability to use the automobile, yet they still have a need to get around the region. There is also the elderly population that could be shut in their homes because of their reliance on the automobile. One of the most traumatic experiences of people getting older is when they are told they must relinquish their car keys. That can mean the loss of their mobility in the region. That is important to consider when we look at transportation systems. We haven’t build roads everywhere. But we haven’t built a system that offers a good alternative to the automobile. He said he came from Lake Oswego this evening. He left the house at 5:08 and made it there in 17 minutes. If any people had lived in other major metropolitan areas around the country such as San Francisco, Boston, New York, Washington DC, Chicago, LA, they will recognize that the congestion in the Portland region is not that bad. In fact, if asked that question in a survey, 47% of the respondents said no, it’s not that bad. The rub here is that Metro, as a planning agency, has the problem of planning for an unknown future as to what might come to the region. It must plan for congestion that will get far worse. That is a difficult thing to sell, in what is essentially a reactive society. We tend to wait for the problems to hit us and we respond swiftly, but at far greater cost than if we had given some thought as to how we can spend our money now to solve problems in the future. He said he hoped we would come up with pro-active solutions. He said he appreciated the fact that so many people have turned out at the hearings and spoken.

Ms. Peterson said she had been working on the electric vehicle. She said we paid only a small registration fee. She said we should pay more to register vehicles. (A lot in here I could not understand...) She said if the infrastructure is there, she would be willing to pay a higher registration fee.

Karen Peterson, (no address given). She said she came from a very small town called Oceanside, Oregon. She said her town has about 700 people. She used to attend the community meetings every month. They were similar to this meeting. Just as what occurred in her home town, occurred when the Capes Project began to collapse into the sea, and the homeowners had to speak to the community of Oceanside over what would be done. It was terrible to witness the turmoil that occurred between neighbor and neighbor, who were separated by only two miles. She would not like to see that kind of dissension occur here. She said because we had all come there to listen, she had not seen very much listening. She had seen a lot of people butting their ideas against those of others. She said they were more concerned with presenting their ideas than listening to how their idea might affect their neighbor. She would be very happy to see that happen in this community, even though this was the Metro community and the Metro community is much larger than Oceanside.

Councilor Washington thanked everyone for being there and for sharing their ideas and criticisms. He said the purpose of the hearing really was to hear from the people. He said the Council was concerned about the effects of its actions. He said it would try to keep people informed on progress.