MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, February 2, 1999

Council Chamber

Chair Kvistad called the meeting to order at 3:45 PM.

1.  CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 1999

2.  LISTENING POST RECAP

Councilor Washington gave a recap of the transportation listening posts recently held in each of the three counties in the region. According to Councilor Washington, those who voted against South/North cited cost, the inefficiency of MAX, the negative impact of light rail on their neighborhoods, and a preference for building new roads and adding new lanes to existing roads as reasons for voting against light rail.

Participants made the following suggestions:

• build light rail in North Portland only, where the measure passed
• establish bus lines between suburbs
• restore the express bus service that was eliminated when the Westside Light Rail opened
• increase parking capacity at Park and Ride lots
• provide adequate sidewalks to walk to mass transit
• increase bike and pedestrian pathways, and dedicate roads for pedestrians and bicycles
• initiate congestion pricing, particularly a toll on the interstate bridges
• establish alternative free-market transportation concepts, such as water taxis on the Willamette River, monorail, subways, taxis, and jitneys

Councilor Washington said he did not receive many responses to the question of how to pay for transportation projects in the region, however, citizens did favor the fareless square concept. Overall, he was pleased with the turnout, although a few individuals did come out to harass and intimidate. He said a full report would be forthcoming from Transportation Planning staff within a few weeks.

Councilor Atherton reported that several people had commented on the negative impacts of traffic pollution. He was concerned by reports from mothers that their children have respiratory problems brought about by traffic pollution; and he noted there is a higher rate of asthma in North Portland because of the excessive traffic pollution in that area.

Andy Cotugno, Director of Transportation Planning, commented on the listening posts. He said the challenge facing Metro would be to decide what to do with all the input. He sensed there is strong agreement in some areas, and a lot of progress has already been achieved through the RTP. Staff knows issues need to be resolved, however, the question of how to resolve them has yet to be answered. Some ideas Metro has shied away from in the past may need to be revisited, such as a downtown tunnel, electric buses, trolleys, and riverway travel. Staff needs to determine how to handle another category of proposals, which includes toll ways and HOV. Mr. Cotugno said Metro should not revisit areas where there is already clear direction on how to proceed, but should rather give new ideas a fair shake, while proceeding with the half dozen key regional projects to try to make progress in some of the corridors. He said a JPACT work session will be held to sort out these ideas with local partners.

Councilor Atherton asked Mr. Cotugno what he believes are Metro’s major transportation priorities. Mr. Cotugno responded that top priority is given to major regional corridors. To-date, South/North/McLoughlin/ I-5/Downtown has been a priority; beyond that, nothing has been determined. South/North still needs to be dealt either by light rail in one or two directions, or a replacement in one or two directions. Funding needs to be found to finish the Sunset Corridor project. Highway 217 is a priority and the Sunrise Corridor-Phase One is also a priority due to growth implications in that direction.

Councilor Atherton said he heard people say at the listening posts they want potholes corrected first, however, there isn’t even enough money for that. He asked if it isn’t a priority to come to terms with the reality that there is not enough money to fund these projects. Chair Kvistad said this would be discussed in the next agenda item. Councilor Bragdon said that other than the portion of the gas tax that is mandated to be spent on expansion, cities and counties could choose to use all of their funds on maintenance and preservation. He said he also heard people say we should fix the roads we already have.

Councilor Atherton asked how much authority Metro has in allocating transportation funds. Chair Kvistad said quite a bit through chairing JPACT and dispensing funds. Mr. Cotugno says we have varying degrees of authority on maintenance. Metro has no authority over money that goes to cities and counties. Metro cannot mandate or set standards. Metro’s authority rests in land use law, so if jurisdictions want to build something, it has to fit in our plan.

3.  OVERVIEW OF REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN (RTP) FINANCE

Mr. Cotugno gave a detailed overview of the funding implications of the road-related portion of the Regional Transportation Plan. He referred to an informational packet that was published in the agenda. A copy of these materials will be included in the permanent record.

Some of the key elements of Mr. Cotugno’s presentation were:

• Increased auto efficiency has a negative effect on per-mile gas tax revenue
• A comparison of average household utility costs shows road use taxes at the bottom
• Oregon auto taxes are among the lowest in the nation (considering a combination of sales tax, vehicle fees and the gas tax)
• Improved pavement quality will be 67% unfunded by 2020
• Status quo pavement quality will be 50% unfunded by 2020
• There will be a 40% revenue shortfall by 2020 to fund State operations, maintenance, and

preservation costs

• The 2020 strategic system is 1/3 funded by current revenue sources

• As income grows, road-related funding will experience a 58% tax share cut, road, highway, bicycle

and pedestrian improvements will be 2/3 unfunded, and pavement conditions will continue to

deteriorate

• In order to fully fund the strategic RTP a 53% increase in revenue is needed from the status quo

(requires a $.04 increase per year)

• In order to simply keep pace with the region’s road needs, a $.02 increase is needed per year
• Possible solutions include:
  • 2+2+2… ($.02/year) equals a $.06 gas tax increase plus indexing
  • 1+1+1… for ongoing maintenance and preservation
  • Implement major freeway expansion projects as toll facilities to substitute for a 1+1+1… gas

tax increase

• Each $9 of vehicle registration fee would substitute for a $.01 gas tax
• Add more cost responsibility to System Development Costs (SDCs), levy SDCs at 100%

cost responsibility in urban reserve areas rather than the current 25%

Mr. Cotugno said Metro needs to complete the RTP. Everything that has been developed to date has been based on what the region needs, not on what it can afford. He said staff needs direction from the elected officials about what choices need to be made, so that staff in turn can give direction to local governments.

Councilor Bragdon said words like “need” and “improvement” are subjective and imply a value judgment that he does not believe everyone shares. As an example, he suggested the term “expansion” be used instead of “improvement.”

Councilor Atherton asked whether reserve maintenance accounts in the region are adequate to bring roads back up to standard. He said local jurisdictions often apply to capital expense what is really a maintenance expense, and that it is important to clarify the terminology. Mr. Cotugno responded that none of the maintenance projects he described are included in the $3.7 billion capital portion of the analysis. They are in the maintenance portion, except the Willamette River Bridge Rehab Project in the amount of $200 million, which is such a large amount it would skew the overall picture dramatically. He said the overlays that are ten years out are not accounted for. He said we are in a pay-as-you-go situation.

Councilor Atherton expressed concern that the manner in which the budget is presented does not reflect the true situation that exists, which is that transportation needs are vastly under funded. Mr. Cotugno agreed that this is the case, however, Metro is not responsible for this misrepresentation. Councilor Atherton said the shortfall needs to be communicated to the public.

4.  STATUS REPORT ON THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) PROGRAM

Councilor McLain complimented staff, particularly Phil Whitmore, TOD program supervisor, and Marc Guichard, TOD associate planner, for their work on the TOD program. She said the program came about because the Council wanted to look for efficient, creative ways of implementing 2040 Concept density along light rail lines and commuter bus lines.

Liz Callison, West Multnomah Soil and Water Conservation District, 6039 SW Knightsbridge Dr., Portland, OR, appeared before the committee to comment on TOD. She said in many cities, TOD is considered a value-added situation where the developer along a transit corridor is enhancing his property value. What Metro has been doing is providing subsidies for these developers. She asked what Metro’s policy is with regard to subsidies. Chair Kvistad said Metro obtained a waiver from the federal government that allows the agency to encourage development. He said Metro buys land and then sells the land at market value that will allow development near infrastructure that meets 2040 Concept guidelines.

Ms. Callison said that in some communities this policy is controversial. She mentioned that neighbors in Milwaukie did not want the high densities that come with light rail. Chair Kvistad said we are looking at existing rail lines in Washington County where there are large open fields next to light rail lines.

Ms. Callison asked about the 1998-99 Unified Work Program. She said there is $10 million in the budget for the South/North Transit Corridor Study. She asked how much was spent prior to the election, and what is left of that budget. She asked for a corresponding lavender sheet for a projection in 2000. She asked for a report that the public can review that summarizes what was spent in 1998, what is left, and what it will be spent on. Chair Kvistad asked Mr. Cotugno or a staff person to relay this information to Ms. Callison. Ms. Callison said it would be unpopular to appear to promote the South/North Corridor when the measure failed.

Mr. Whitmore reviewed several documents pertaining to the Transportation Oriented Development (TOD) Program. Copies of these documents are included as part of the meeting record. Mr. Whitmore described the principles behind the TOD program. Studies show that investing in TOD-like programs is eight to fourteen times more cost-effective on inducing ridership than conventional transit projects. He said a Metro Travel Behavior Study, completed in 1994, showed that a mixed-use project with good transit service has ten times the transit ridership than a typical suburban area with less good transit service. Mr. Whitmore said with a small federal grant, Metro has tried to increase density, provide mixed use, and to increase the quality of the pedestrian environment.

Chair Kvistad asked that this portion of the presentation be deferred until the Urban Forum on Transportation. He asked Mr. Whitmore to describe the funding package, and how the revolving fund works. Mr. Whitmore said that previously if you sold real estate that had federal funds used to acquire it, you returned the money to the federal treasury. There was not a big incentive for local areas to sell surplus right-of-way. Metro was able to change this policy, and this change in policy has now become the law of the land. Now Metro can acquire a site, and when it’s sold, rather than return the money, it can be put in a revolving fund, to purchase additional land. He said Metro estimates it can obtain about 2.5 cycles on every revolving fund.

Mr. Whitmore said Metro acquires a property at it’s highest and best use and sells it at it’s highest and best transit use. The formula takes into consideration the added fare box revenue from added density and added mixed use. It allows some offset into the property sales price if the appraisal shows there is a cost penalty arising from attempting to induce ridership. Chair Kvistad we have an option to use dollars strictly for infrastructure or as a partnership to cover costs that might otherwise preclude partners from undertaking a project. Councilor Atherton observed that Metro acts as a mini-redevelopment agency. Mr. Whitmore concurred, but pointed out it is a very lean operation.

Mr. Cotugno says there have been two cycles allocating federal ISTEA funds to the TOD program. First CMAQ funds were allocated, which resulted in eight TOD projects to build infrastructure for a total of $3.8 million. The second round was $3 million, which was the federal transit grant Metro received for land acquisition. He explained the multiplier effect on funds, which is built into the TOD program. Whatever profit is realized is put into the next project.

5.  REVIEW OF THE TIP PROJECT LIST

Chair Kvistad said the review of the TIP project list would take place at the next Transportation Planning Committee meeting.

6.  JPACT AGENDA REVIEW

Mr. Cotugno distributed and reviewed the JPACT agenda. It was agreed to schedule a legislative review with Metro lobbyist Ray Phelps, on the agenda in two weeks. Mr. Cotugno will provide summary of bills pertaining to transportation issues.

7.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATIONS

None.

There being no further business before the committee, Chair Kvistad adjourned the meeting at 5:13 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Lindsey Ray

Senior Council Assistant

C:\Micro Focus Content Manager\WebDrawerWorkpath\TEMP\HPTRIM.6032\t000BF1Z.doc