MINUTES OF THE METRO COUNCIL

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

Tuesday, April 20, 1999

Council Chamber

Chair Kvistad called the meeting to order at 3:38 PM.

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

1.  CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES OF APRIL 6, 1999 JOINT JPACT/METRO COUNCIL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

The minutes were not available for consideration at this time.

2.  INFORMATIONAL BRIEFING ON YOUTH & TRI-MET (SPIRIT)

At the last minute Ms. Perez was not able to attend this committee meeting so the item will be moved to another day or omitted.

3.  Resolution No. 99-2772, For the Purpose of Amending the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) to Approve an Element of Tri-Met’s Bus Purchase Program

Mike Hoglund, Transportation Planning Manager, explained this resolution would begin the process for the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) and State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) to approve bus purchases from Tri-Met general fund monies. He said the complicated process would take about 4 months. He noted that in the event the $18 million request for the airport LRT extension passed, the general fund money would be used for the airport LRT and the $18 million from the MTIP process would be substituted and used for the bus purchases. Tri-Met wanted to start purchasing the new buses now to coincide with the construction schedule they had laid out for the airport LRT. Waiting for the MTIP process to be completed and adopted would delay the bus purchases by a couple of months. This resolution would start the time consuming TIP amendment and federal approval process to authorize the bus purchases. Once those funds have been identified for bus purchases, it would be basically an administrative action to use the MTIP money for the bus purchases and Tri-Met general fund dollars for the LRT.

He reiterated that this resolution would get the amendment process started and did not predetermine any allocation. He said if the allocation wasn’t made through the MTIP process, then Tri-Met would apply the monies as best they could to the bus purchases.

Councilor Kvistad said there was the potential for re-review of this money if it did not make it through the MTIP process and it could be allocated to projects that did not make the 100% cut list in the non-road category.

Councilor Atherton asked what would happen if they did not approve the resolution. He wondered if then the lightrail transit process would be cut short.

Mr. Hoglund answered that he understood it would be delayed a couple of months until the MTIP process was completed because they would have to wait and see if the $18 million was approved for the airport LRT project.

Councilor Atherton voiced some reservations about the project.

Mr. Hoglund responded that the RTP had identified some improvements to Airport Way for including the LRT, such as widening the road and ramp improvements to I-205. He said there was a whole package of improvements but they all carried a pice tag which existing resources wouldn’t cover right now. He felt that was the issue Councilor Atherton raised in previous conversations.

Councilor Atherton said that was correct. He said when he had asked about the availability of LIDs or SDCs it was because he felt they were clearly moving towards having development pay its own way. He said he did not see that cycle completed here because the plan was not complete. He said he was reticent to vote for this. He felt this was actually a fund shifting to allow the airport lightrail to go forward and not a bus purchase program and they should call it what it was. He asked if Tri-Met really needed the buses or could they take buses from underutilized lines and move them to areas that needed the service.

Mr. Hoglund thought they actually did need the buses. He continued that there had been $16 million in transit service improvements identified as necessary over the next 4 years and those had been evaluated for impacts such as rider shift, mode split and cost-effectiveness. Staff was still working on some of those as far as recommendations to TIP.

Councilor Atherton commented that since the staff report and background information was not included here he would like the other committee members to comment.

Councilor Bragdon said they had been assessing this need for several years. He had attended a couple of meetings in the southwest. He said there were areas that needed more service and there was a plan to raise the fare a nickel as part of that funding component. They were also going to 15 minute but intervals instead of the ½ hour schedule they had now. He felt there was a clear plan to extend the hours of service. He said they had also been pretty responsible about asking for input about which areas to cut.

Councilor Atherton asked if Mr. Houser had any comments.

Mr. Houser said his only concern was to what extent the MTIP process would be affected. He wondered if MTIP funding was automatically presumed for this project because, in a sense, this resolution made a commitment to support utilizing a portion of the MTIP funds for the lightrail project to the airport. He felt it was putting the cart before the horse although he recognized there were some procedural issues this resolution would help, like shortening the timeline for procuring the buses. He felt it may ultimately cause a problem if they wanted to consider reducing the $18 million as it was proposed for allocation in the Priorities 2000 process.

Councilor Atherton asked if this was approved, when would the decision be made on the airport lightrail and the $18 million.

Councilor Kvistad said Metro had no contribution to the airport lightrail, it was independently funded. He thought the region had already acquiesced to the fact that the project was moving forward. He said it was a joint project between the City of Portland and the Port, and Metro was not involved other than how it would affect the whole transportation mix.

Councilor Atherton said Metro was participating if they had to sign off on the $18 million. He said he had received phone calls from many people upset because they had read in the newspapers that this project would not involve any public money.

Councilor Kvistad reminded him that this project was already on the list and made the first $150 million cut. He understood what Councilor Atherton was saying but said they were at a different component place than what he was trying to get to.

Councilor Atherton said part of his concern may be his lack of knowledge and background of what Tri-Met was trying to accomplish and the extent of their needs. He could not understand how in the 1960s Tri-Met had a 7% ridership in this region and there was more farebox participation then than there was now. He said it seemed on every measure they were going downhill with Tri-Met.

Councilor Kvistad said a discussion regarding Tri-Met was definitely something he would like to take part in, but at this time the discussion was whether or not to take action on the MTIP. He said either way funding was the next step.

Councilor Atherton said Clackamas County was constantly faced with the bigger picture because they did not get adequate Tri-Met service

Councilor Kvistad thought Washington County shared that point of view

Mr. Hoglund wanted to respond to some of the concerns of the councilors. He said the RTP called for a balance over the next 20 years for Tri-Met service to get to the point where the City of Portland was receiving 50% of the service and other regional and suburban areas were receiving 50%. He said ridership continued to set records on a monthly basis, both for boarding and originating rides. He said they were spending 1½-2% more on transit and that was being reflected in ridership. He said the Resolution’s final “Whereas” was that this action would not prejudice the Priorities 2000 decision process and the third resolve was that Tri-Met would not sign bus delivery contracts associated with this action until after the process was complete. He said their department would like to have Tri-Met come give the “macro view” for this committee and perhaps the other councilors as well. He said Tri-Met was trying to open up their planning processes and make them more public and more understandable as to where they provided service and their long term goals. Regarding the airport lightrail, he said they normally did not bring in projects that were not under Metro’s authority for final approval. Technically they did not need to bring airport lightrail back here, however there had been at least 3 opportunities to ask questions on the project in conjunction with other things.

Councilor Kvistad said the Clackamas County leadership had asked almost directly for Metro not to deviate in any way from the South/North lightrail priority. The problem with the transportation package was more than just limited available money, it was that if you spent 5 years not studying any options and then that community says no to the project you’ve been holding out at their request, you did not have a fall back position with the exception of what they had now promised to do which was still a couple of years in the development. He said they were years behind because they had been asked to be and they could not turn around and say. “guess what, you get this HOV” because there hadn’t been any studying on it at the county’s own request. This was a macro discussion that they had been asked not to have by the county. He said they at least had I-205. His county didn’t have a system that worked at all, let alone HOV.

Councilor Atherton reminded Councilor Kvistad that they now had a westside lightrail.

Councilor Kvistad said the westside lightrail only went through the northern part of the county, while the growth was in the southern part which not only didn’t have any roads, there was next to no transit and they were paying a good, solid share of the Tri-Met money. He said the committee wished to get to the macro debate, he would love to have one.

Councilor Atherton said part of his concern with the lightrail project was there were no plans to clearly relieve the overburden on the surface transportation in that area.

Councilor Kvistad said he understood Councilor Atherton’s point, but they were still debating the macro when what they had in front of them was the micro. He said there were certain steps to take either way and this expedited part of the process.

Councilor Atherton said he would have to abstain from the vote at this time but would get more information on the issue so he could make an informed choice and add to the debate at council.

Councilor Kvistad asked Mr. Hoglund to have staff brief Councilor Atherton and provide him with a Tri-Met overview and service provision before the council meeting. He said he was comfortable with where they were but wanted to make sure the new members of the transportation committee were also comfortable with it.

4.  MTIP Update

 COUNCILOR BRIEFING ON METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (MTIP) 100% LIST

Councilor Kvistad gave an overview of the matrix. He noted it was now broken out into 3 sections where previously it had only been 2. The top section was precommitted and the second was the proposed 100% list. The third section were the ones that were approved and moved forward by JPACT but did not make the 100% cut. He said Mr. Hoglund would speak to the 100% ODOT transportation enhancement project list because ODOT was still ranking those projects. He said the $2.427 million of unallocated funds at the bottom of the page was the difference between the $75 million and the preallocated projects on the list.

Mr. Hoglund commented that this area took longer than any other area in the country to allocate federal funding and they were proud of it. This process was kicked on in May 1998 and would be completed in May or June 1999. He said the next step from the earlier hearing this month was this to balance the available revenue to the 100% list. He said they had asked JPACT for the colored graph he handed out (a copy of the graph can be found in the permanent record of this meeting.) to use as a guide to where JPACT members were on the modal allocations. He said they had heard testimony at the hearings and from JPACT members that there should be more direction from JPACT as to how to assign dollars across modes. He hoped future allocation processes would be a little more clear modal and project wise. He said they had come up with a recommendation and it had been reviewed with the executive officer who was generally comfortable with it. He said they had met with local governments through the TIP subcommittee to TPAC and talked about their recommendations. The items lined in pink were recommendations that the TIP subcommittee requested they reevaluate, meaning there were general disagreements with the recommendations. Obviously, if something moved back onto the list something else had to come off, to the point there was $2.4 million unallocated. He said they had purposely gone below 100% because the debate should be more on the projects that could be moved forward. He noted they had tried to be sensitive to the geographic equity of funds relative to the value of the project and given their technical rankings. He explained the reasoning behind each choice on the list. Referring to rebuilding Naito Parkway from Davis to Market, he said Councilor Atherton had some concerns about that project and asked what those were.

Councilor Atherton said the road had been redone approximately 3 years ago. He wondered why it had not been done right the first time so it would be more than a 3-5 year fix. He said the engineer on the street had told him they would be back because they never seemed to get all the money they needed to do it right because it was the underpinnings of the road that were the problem.

Mr. Hoglund said this was the money that would allow them to come back and do it right so it would be the 20-year fix.

Councilor Atherton asked if the $1.5 million was enough to do that.

Mr. Hoglund said that was enough to match the funds the city would put into the project. He said the city had originally asked for more money but it had been cut back. He said they were now trying to find the rest of the money to make it work. He noted there was come concern from the TIP committee about the Johnson Creek project, which had been on the books for a long time. Another $300,000 might have to be added to that project for stormwater runoff. He reminded the committee of the recommendation for the trestle track repair on the Willamette shoreline to maintain the right of way. He went over the rest of the sections of the list, explaining the projects in general. He noted that the projects highlighted in pink would be put together on a page for TPAC next week. Then based on their recommendation some of the pinks would be funded and some would not. That would carry forward to JPACT. Then there would be the hearing on May 4 and JPACT consideration of the proposal on the 13th.

Councilor Bragdon said the chart they had been asked to contribute to was part of the exercise to find out where the was, seemed disconnected with what actually came out. He said it was a question of balance. He commented that it appeared from the chart that the boulevards program, transit, TOD and bikes and pedestrians had pretty significant support from the council, whereas road-widening did not.

Councilor Kvistad said neither his nor Councilor Atherton’s comments had made it to the chart.

Councilor Bragdon said there was a lot of testimony on the Morrison bridge project at the two hearings he attended, and it was ranked #1 so it was a surprise to see it drop off the list.

Councilor Atherton asked about the I-5 trade corridor study. He wondered if it hadn’t been studied to death already.

Councilor Kvistad said this study was not about the corridor itself, but the trade and freight movement within the corridor.

Councilor Atherton asked about a project that Wayne Kittleson had developed back in the 1980s that would have solved a big problem as far as safety and movement, and that used to be on the RTP but had dropped off. He wondered why people had cited study after study after study that had already been done, but nobody had ever implemented any of them.

Mr. Hoglund said Councilor Atherton was right. There was an old existing Greeley to Banfield study that was perhaps the one Mr. Kittleson had done. He understood the cost of that project had increased significantly and included a number of structures and flyover ramps that they probably couldn’t afford. He said part of what ODOT was trying to do now with was a Rose Quarter/Corridor transportation study to look at intermediate fixes in the bottleneck area by the Rose Garden and the access onto I-5 and connecting to I-84. He said they hadn’t actually done a study to the north, but had a number of times looked at bypasses and third bridge issues. He said Metro Council and JPACT’s policy had been to see what they could do with the existing freeway before they considered more bridges. He said this was the first time they had looked at right of way under the guise that it was important for trade and access to the marine terminals and the industrial job base in Rivergate and Columbia’s south shore.

Councilor Atherton asked why the port did not take care of that.

Mr. Hoglund said the project was originally $9 million but the costs kept going up. He said Metro had picked up some of the cost and were looking to complete the project. He said the port had updated an interesting transportation improvement program study that they could perhaps get information on at their meeting Tri-Met. He said they had pointed out where they thought it was their responsibility to fund 100% of the projects. They had a list of projects they were willing to do, like Airport Way. They also had identified a number of projects they felt were beneficial to their terminal, but provided access to properties they didn’t own but that were providing jobs to residents of Portland so they were willing to come to the table with a 50/50 approach.

Councilor Atherton asked why the Fanno Creek Phase II dropped off of the bike trail?

Councilor Kvistad said Fanno Creek was an addition that didn’t make the 150% list to begin with. He said It represented completion of the westside, kind of like a Springwater Corridor trail but the westside component. He noted that it didn’t make the first cut because the project was so big. It had been reevaluated and this part made the list. He said Metro’s Greenspaces was looking at providing some funds for the trail.

Councilor Atherton was concerned about Greenspace funds being used to backfill transportation projects.

Councilor Kvistad said it was the opposite and this would supplement the Greenspace purchase, because it was on the Greenspaces bond measure and was already in the corridor. He said it was in the master plan for our Greenspaces program so this was to supplement. He said it would take care of part of the Greenspace purchase over and above what they had planned to expend. He said they were not backfilling with Greenspace, they were backfilling with part of the transportation money so they were able to get by with a much smaller chunk.

Councilor Atherton said one of the main purposes of the Willamette shoreline study was to clarify some legal issues in regard to ownership and whether the right of way was available for use for bike/pedestrian path as well as for railway purposes. He asked if the study was to care of that legal problem.

Mr. Hoglund said it was.

Councilor Kvistad said the trolley had to be operational in order for the right of way to stay in public ownership. He said if it became unoperational it couldn’t be used for bikes either.

Mr. Hoglund said they had a legal opinion from Don Stark and that was not totally true. He said one of the reasons they were so enthusiastic about making this study was to get that issue cleared up.

Councilor Bragdon asked if a legal opinion from ODOT expressing their intent to use it in the future would be enough to prevent it from reverting.

Councilor Kvistad said he understood the concern but would be hesitant to lightly go into it because rail and property rights laws were very convoluted. He felt they should probably look at keeping it.

Councilor Atherton noted a great deal of public support for this project.

Mr. Hoglund suggested highlighting the Willamette shoreline bike study in pink and so they could come back to it and find the remaining unanswered questions and how far they could get without the $150,000.

Councilor Kvistad said Carl Rohde, from a JPACT as well as a city council perspective, was fairly adamant about seeing this project funded.

Councilor Atherton talked about the Metro hazard survey for the region which clearly indicated many places in the urban area where there was very poor access for fire fighting equipment including this one. He thought having trailway opened would allow better access for the fire fighting vehicles access to the area. He commented his feelings on the issue were tempered by his experience in Lake Oswego with the TDM contract on Kruse Way, which he felt produced a giant zero. He said he would talk to Mr. Hogland about it before the next meeting.

Councilor Kvistad said they had a lot of work to do and it would come back to this committee in 2 weeks before it went to JPACT. He said the committee would get the updated information in a week or so.

Mr. Hoglund said he had been worried since he spoke to Andy was that the next scheduled meeting was May 4 which was the day of the hearing. He didn’t think they’d be amenable to getting a lot of work done, or process the information.

Councilor Kvistad said they would get the information on that day for discussion but wouldn’t be able to make decisions about it.

Mr. Hoglund said if the committee wanted to affect the final outcome and bring a proposal to JPACT, it might be different than TPAC. He said perhaps he and Mr. Cotugno and Chair Kvistad could think about meeting on the 11th.

Councilor Kvistad said they would have an overview, whether it was before council or the committee to meet the deadlines. They would have to balance the JPACT work and the Council priorities so he was sure there would be several conversations upcoming.

Mr. Hoglund said the upcoming meetings were TPAC on the April 30th, the public hearing on May 4, and JPACT on May 13. Then it would go to the full council on May 27.

5.  COUNCILOR COMMUNICATION

None

ADJOURN

There being no further business before the committee, Chair Kvistad adjourned the meeting at 5:07 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Cheryl Grant

Council Assistant