Meeting Notes 1990-02-08 - Portland State University

Portland State University Portland State University

PDXScholar PDXScholar

Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation Oregon Sustainable Community Digital Library

2-8-1990

Meeting Notes 1990-02-08 Meeting Notes 1990-02-08

Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation

Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/oscdl_jpact

Let us know how access to this document benefits you.

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation, "Meeting Notes 1990-02-08 " (1990). Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation. 128. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/oscdl_jpact/128

This Minutes is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected].

https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/

https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/oscdl_jpact

https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/oscdl_jpact

https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/oscdl

https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/oscdl_jpact?utm_source=pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu%2Foscdl_jpact%2F128&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://library.pdx.edu/services/pdxscholar-services/pdxscholar-feedback/?ref=https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/oscdl_jpact/128

https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/oscdl_jpact/128?utm_source=pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu%2Foscdl_jpact%2F128&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[email protected]

METRO2000 S.W. First AvenuePortland, OR 97201-5398503/221-1646

Agenda

Meeting: JOINT POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Date: February 8, 1990

Day: Thursday

Time: 7:15 a.m.

Place: Metro, Conference Room 440

2.

*3.

*4.

*5.

*6.

MEETING REPORT OF JANUARY 18, 1990 - APPROVAL REQUESTED.

WESTSIDE STATUS REPORT - INFORMATIONAL - Bob Post.

RESOLUTION NO. 90-1213 ~ PROVIDING THE ASSESSMENT OF DUES TOLOCAL GOVERNMENTS FOR FY 1990-91 - APPROVAL REQUESTED - AndyCotugno.

RESOLUTION NO. 90-1189 - ADOPTING THE JPACT BYLAWS - APPROVALREQUESTED - Andy Cotugno.

RESOLUTION NO. 90-1218 - AMENDING THE REGION'S HIGHWAYIMPROVEMENTS FOR INCLUSION IN THE 1991-96 ODOT SIX-YEARHIGHWAY PROGRAM - APPROVAL REQUESTED - Andy Cotugno.

UPDATE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION ACT - INFORMATIONAL - DickFeeney/Dave Williams.

Material enclosed.

NOTE: Overflow parking is available at the City Centerparking locations on the attached map,, and may bevalidated at the meeting. Parking on Metro premises inany space other than those marked "Visitors" willresult in towing of vehicle.

NEXT JPACT MEETING: MARCH 8, 1990, 7:15 A.M.

MEETING REPORT

DATE OF MEETING:

GROUP/SUBJECT:

PERSONS ATTENDING

MEDIA:

January 18, 1990

Joint Policy Advisory Committee onTransportation (JPACT)

Members: Chairman Mike Ragsdale, George VanBergen and David Knowles, Metro Council; DaveSturdevant, Clark County; Marjorie Schmunk,Cities of Multnomah County; Craig Lomnicki(alt.), Cities of Clackamas County; Ed Lind-quist, Clackamas County; Roy Rogers (alt.)/Washington County; Nick Nikkila (alt.), DEQ;Gary Demich, WSDOT; Bob Bothman, ODOT;Clifford Clark, Cities of Washington County;Scott Collier, City of Vancouver; Jim Cowen,Tri-Met; and Mike Lindberg (alt.), City ofPortland

Guests: Rena Cusma, Executive Officer,Metro; Steve Nouser and Bebe Rucker, Port ofPortland; Vic Rhodes, Grace Crunican, SteveDotterrer, Stuart Gwin, Ted Leybold, BarrowEmerson and Chris Beck, City of Portland; TedSpence, Erik East (Public Transit), Don Adams(JPACT alt.); Wink Brooks and Dave Schamp,City of Hillsboro; Susie Lahsene, MultnomahCounty; Bob Post (JPACT alt.), Dick Feeney,Doug Capps, Bruce Harder, G.B. Arrington, JoeWalsh and Dan Caufield, Tri-Met; GussieMcRobert (JPACT alt.), City of Gresham; RickKuehn, consultant; Geoff Larkin, consultant;Walt Peck, Dennis Mulvihill and Bruce Warner,Washington County; Tom VanderZanden and RodSandoz, Clackamas County; Mary Tobias, Tuala-tin Valley Economic Development Corporation;Diane Luther, Multnomah County Board; GregBaldwin, Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Partnership;Peter Fry, CEIC; Molly O'Reilly, Forest ParkNeighborhood Association; Rodger Clauson,City of Gresham; Howard Harris, DEQ; andLeslie White, C-TRAN

Staff: Andrew Cotugno, Richard Brandman,Richard Marshment, Ethan Seltzer, KarenThackston, Keith Lawton, Harlan Miller (FHWAintern), and Lois Kaplan, Secretary

Robert Goldfield, The Daily Journal ofCommerce; and Jim Mayer, The Oregonian

JPACTJanuary 18, 1990Page 2

SUMMARY:

The meeting was called to order and a quorum declared by ChairmanMike Ragsdale. He introduced David Knowles and David Sturdevant,new appointees to the Committee (representing Metro Council andClark County, respectively), Roy Rogers (Washington County'sJPACT alternate) and Mike Lindberg (City of Portland alternate).

MEETING REPORT

The December 14 JPACT meeting report was approved as presented.

LRT DECISION-MAKING

Andy Cotugno reported that the handout (regarding the RegionalLRT System attachment) replaced the mailed-out version in theagenda packet. Resolution No. 90-1179 proposes a comprehensiveorganizational structure for the LRT corridor studies and methodsfor Clark County involvement. The corridor planning organizationis ready for adoption but direction is needed from JPACT on ClarkCounty involvement.

Andy then reviewed the LRT corridor planning activities consist-ing of three components: 1) the Westside Planning ManagementGroup is in place to deal with the Hillsboro extension; 2) an I-205/Milwaukie corridor Alternatives Analysis is proposed to be acoordinated effort with JPACT serving as the Steering Committee;and 3) a bi-state organizational structure (IRC/JPACT) willaddress bi-state and river crossing issues. Andy indicated theneed to establish an overall Technical Advisory Committee forthese bi-state studies.

Discussion followed on the need for balanced representation forcorridor planning and regional systems planning. It was recom-mended that there be some degree of Clark County involvement onthe I-205/Milwaukie corridor.

Andy then reviewed Attachment A outlining options for ClarkCounty involvement. He noted that staff needs basic policydirection from JPACT for inclusion in the resolution.

Chairman Ragsdale felt that discussions have been focused pri-marily on Clark County's role, noting that he had met withCommissioner Sturdevant to discuss conflicts of interest. Bothagreed that it would be useful to defer action for a period of 30days. Commissioner Sturdevant stated that Option B was a com-fortable compromise, adding that the delay would allow him timeto meet individually with concerned parties. He felt a regionalperspective and common ground would be reached to resolve the

JPACTJanuary 18, 1990 *Page 3

problems.

James Cowen expressed concern about the status of the Westsideproject and spoke of a recent discussion with Brian Clymer,Administrator of UMTA, who commented that the Portland region is"out of control." His comments centered on the proliferation ofprojects submitted through the UMTA process, the need to move theWestside LRT project forward and the critical timeline. Mr.Cowen urged JPACT members to postpone all other LRT corridorprojects until a Full-Funding Agreement is reached for the West-side project. Even with the backing of our Congressional dele-gation, Mr. Cowen reported that UMTA is paying little attentionto the Westside project. He felt this was happening primarilybecause of the size of our delegation and because it is heavilyDemocratic.

A discussion followed on the need to settle planning for futureprojects and determine which corridor is next. Mr. Cowen sug-gested making an accommodation with UMTA so that the focus willremain on the Westside/Hillsboro Extension project.

Bob Bothman had also met with Brian Clymer and concurred with Mr.Cowen's comments. Mr. Clymer's concern was that the amount ofUMTA funds being sought exceeded the funds available for theentire country. Mr. Bothman pointed out that only one projectcould be planned at a time, that the state's highest priority isthe Westside corridor, and that he would oppose anything thatwould jeopardize the Westside LRT project. He did not feel wehad the resources to do all the planning and proceed with morethan one corridor at a time. He pointed out that, after theAlternatives Analysis stage in the other corridors, funding wouldnot be available for construction.

Commissioner Rogers noted that Washington County has receivedsimilar messages from Washington concerning the number of LRTfunding requests. He did not feel that the Hillsboro projectshould be regarded as anything other than an extension of theWestside project. Commissioner Rogers felt it was inappropriatefor a joint IRC/JPACT management structure to deal with theHillsboro Alternatives Analysis and asked for clarification ofOption B. In response, Chairman Ragsdale stated that exclusionof the Hillsboro AA from a bi-state process was intended in thelanguage for Option B. Commissioner Sturdevant felt that theterm "Westside" meant LRT to 185th and was not inclusive of theHillsboro Extension. It was clarified that Congressman AuCoin'sintent is that the Westside route includes the Hillsboro Exten-sion.


Clifford Clark stated that the cities of Washington County areanxious for Hillsboro to be the terminus for the Westside LRT andexpressed concern about other non-Westside jurisdictions' in-volvement .

Commissioner Lindberg stated that the City of Portland believesthe Westside LRT is the top priority but regional planning shouldcontinue on with a regional LRT agenda.

Councilman Lomnicki commented that the cities of Clackamas Countyalso acknowledge that the Westside LRT is the region's number onepriority and the McLoughlin project as next in priority.

Andy Cotugno provided an overview of the LRT corridor planningprocess: planning activity leading to an Alternatives Analysis;formal approval by UMTA to start preliminary engineering; andsigning of a full-funding contract with the Federal Government.Andy indicated there is a question as to how soon implementationproceedings can start with a second corridor. UMTA rules stateonly when a full-funding agreement is in place.

Andy reported that I-205/Milwaukie is the next corridor ready tocommence the Alternatives phase, but the question is when. Com-missioner Lindquist asked JPACT to defer action on the Milwaukie/1-205 corridor until a meeting with our Congressional delegationcould be held. He suggested having Dick Feeney, James Cowen,Chairman Ragsdale and Andy Cotugno consult with the delegationand report back to JPACT at its February 8 meeting. CommissionerLindquist cautioned against letting a new Administrator set thisregion's LRT agenda. Chairman Ragsdale indicated he would bemeeting with the Congressional delegation in the next week.

Chairman Ragsdale spoke of the need to develop a better under-standing of the region's priorities and to stay with them. Hecited "freelancing" by JPACT members as a problem.

Chairman Ragsdale felt there were two issues to be resolved atpresent: 1) whether or not to defer the matter regarding ClarkCounty relationships; 2) and how we proceed with LRT projects inthis region.

After further discussion, the Committee agreed to defer the com-ponent relating to Clark County's participation to the February 8JPACT meeting.

Andy explained that this resolution would reaffirm the organiza-tional structure for the Westside/Hillsboro EIS and for the Bi-State Study. Further discussion needs to take place on how toproceed and coordinate the Milwaukie/l-205 AA.


Action Taken: Chairman Ragsdale proposed, and the Committeeconcurred, to recommend approval of la under "Corridor Planning"of the LRT Decision-Making memo (pertaining to addition of theHillsboro Alternatives Analysis to the Westside Corridor Projectmanagement structure).

Chairman Ragsdale proposed, and the Committee concurred, torecommend approval of lc under "Corridor Planning" of the LRTDecision-Making memo (pertaining to establishment of a jointIRC/JPACT management structure for the bi-state related studies).

Chairman Ragsdale proposed, and the Committee concurred, to deferaction on clause lb (relating to establishment of a coordinatedI-205/Milwaukie corridor management structure) until the nextagenda item and clause 2 (relating to Clark County involvement)of the LRT Decision-Making memo for a period of 30 days,

OPTIONS FORPROCEEDING ON 1-205 LRT

An issues paper on 1-205 was reviewed by Andy Cotugno. Pointsincluded: 1) the 1-205 corridor is now estimated at a total of$150 million rather than $40-50 million for each segment; and2) no decision has been made on how a $15.00 vehicle registrationfee would be spent. (It would be possible to construct theWestside and one additional rail line costing less than $200million assuming 50 percent federal funding.)

Chairman Ragsdale pointed out that we have a responsibility tolet Congress know what our preferences are. Congress is seekinga request coordinated through JPACT. Councilor Van Bergen con-curred in the need to talk to our Congressional delegation;wanted more time to think about the I-205/Milwaukie corridormanagement structure before an approach is taken with UMTA; anddid not wish to do anything that would jeopardize the Westsideproject. He commented that he attended a Chamber of Commercemeeting at which Michael Hollern stated that the second LRTcorridor would be in the McLoughlin/I-205 corridor.

Commissioner Lindberg supported moving ahead with the recom-mendations in the packet inasmuch as they (1-205 and Milwaukie)could be delayed a period of up to 18 months.

Commissioner Rogers questioned whether it was premature to adoptrecommendation No. 3 (referring to the 1-205 Issues paper) andcited the need for clarification on the McLoughlin and 1-205projects to our Congressional delegation.

Andy Cotugno stated JPACT's previously adopted position: 1) thatthe McLoughlin corridor is the next Section 3 priority after the


Westside project; and 2) that an Alternatives Analysis shouldalso be done in the 1-205 corridor without Section 3 funds.

Commissioner Lindquist requested a clarification from Congress onthe Section 3 requirements.

In summation, Chairman Ragsdale felt there was JPACT concurrencein: reconfirmation of the Westside project; reconfirmation thatit is our intent to proceed with the McLoughlin/I-205 Corridorfollowing advice from our Congressional delegation; and that weshould consult with our delegation regarding funding constraintsimposed on 1-205.

Bob Bothman did not agree with Recommendation No. 2 (1-205 Issuespaper) as he felt it would jeopardize the Westside project. Itwas noted that if we proceed with an Alternatives Analysis for I-205 that is not Section 3 funded, there would be no problem withUMTA. A discussion followed on how best to deal with the UMTAproblem. Mr. Bothman stated he would go along with Recommenda-tion No. 2 of the ,1-205 issues paper if the Alternatives Analysisreference were eliminated.

James Cowen indicated he would be meeting again shortly with UMTAAdministrator Brian Clymer.

A discussion followed on whether JPACT should recommend contin-uing with the Alternatives Analysis for 1-205 or deferring theprojects for an 18-month period until a Westside Full-FundingAgreement is signed, or adopt a position to proceed with the I-205/Milwaukie corridor AA, the date of which will be determinedso that it will not affect the Westside project. CouncilorLomnicki did not feel it was prudent to delay the I-205/Milwaukieproject, pointing out that national factors could impact laterdevelopment.

Action Taken: It was moved and seconded to amend the 1-205Issues paper recommendations as follows:

. Rewording for Recommendation No. 1: "Reconfirm that theWestside LRT to Hillsboro is the region's No. 1 priority andwill be the priority focus of attention locally, with UMTA andwith our Congressional delegation."

. Rewording for Recommendation No. 2: "Reconfirm that it is ourintent desire to proceed with Alternatives Analysis in both the1-205 and Milwaukie corridors and that they will be conductedin a coordinated manner "


. Rewording for Recommendation No. 3: "Seek advice from ourCongressional delegation on how to best proceed with Alterna-tives Analysis for the Milwaukie and 1-205 corridors and notunduly jeopardize future funding options for these corridors orfor the Westside Corridor."

In discussion on the motion, Councilor Van Bergen took issue withthe wording of Recommendation No. 2 and felt it should insteadstate "Reconfirm that we shall proceed" rather than "it is ourdesire to proceed" (relating to the Alternatives Analysis for theMilwaukie and 1-205 corridors).

Bob Bothman questioned whether Recommendations 2 and 5 were con-sistent.

The motion was then amended to delete Recommendation No. 5. Themotion, as amended, CARRIED. Councilor Van Bergen dissented.

RESOLUTION NO. 90-1189 - JPACT BYLAWS

Andy Cotugno reviewed the three amendments proposed to the JPACTBylaws. Clifford Clark raised the following concerns:

. Whether the largest city represented from a county should con-vene a forum to take remedial action against unexcused absences(as noted in Article V, clause g).

. That Section 2f under Article IV be changed to read "Membersand alternate from the State of Washington will be eitherelected officials or principal staff representatives from ClarkCounty, the cities of Clark County, the Washington Departmentof Transportation aa4 or C-TRAN "

. Rather than members and alternates from the Cities of Mult-nomah, Washington and Clackamas Counties being appointedthrough use of a mail ballot, he suggested nomination throughthe Transportation Coordinating Committees.

. No mention or specification of special meetings was made inArticle Va.

. Clarification of intent and power of subcommittees.

Action Taken: The Committee agreed to defer action on thismatter to the February 8 JPACT meeting. Councilor Van Bergenrequested that Clifford Clark submit any proposed amendments inwriting for consideration of the members at that time.


RESOLUTION NO. 90-1177 - AMENDING THE TPAC BYLAWS

Action Taken: It was moved and seconded to recommend approval ofResolution No. 90-1177 amending the TPAC bylaws. Motion PASSEDunanimously.

RESOLUTION 90-1200 - ALLOCATING THE INTERSTATE REGIONAL RESERVEAND AMENDING THE TIP ACCORDINGLY

Andy Cotugno reported that TPAC was supportive of Recommendations1 and 2. Other options for Recommendations 3 and 4 were forarterial-type projects to be allocated through a formula approachor a discretionary basis. Andy then reviewed the alternativeprojects as noted in the Staff Report.

Clifford Clark questioned whether there are additional needs forthe Banfield Freeway. Don Adams responded that this is the lastrequirement on the Banfield.

Councilor Van Bergen pointed out past history on the Banfieldwhen concern was raised in UMTA over Section 9 funds being trans-ferred for operating purposes. Andy noted that RecommendationNo. 4 would allow funding for expansion of the light rail fleet.He explained that TPAC' s recommendation is to approve the reso-lution or, if another alternative is preferred, to recommendapproval of Recommendations 1 and 2 and refer the remainder ofthe proposal back to the TIP Subcommittee.

Action Taken: It was moved and seconded to recommend approval ofResolution 90-1200 allocating the Interstate Transfer RegionalReserve and amending the TIP accordingly. It was noted for therecord that approval of Recommendation No. 3 (pertaining to the$2 million toward Convention Center area transportation improve-ments) does not allocate funds for hotel site acquisition forProject Breakeven.

In discussion on the motion, Commissioner Lindquist suggestedapproving Recommendations 1, 2 and 4 but raised questions per-taining to funds for the Convention Center transportation im-provements .

The motion CARRIED. Craig Lomnicki, Ed Lindquist, George VanBergen and Marge Schmunk dissented.

WESTSIDE STATUS REPORT

Chairman Ragsdale referred this agenda item to the February 8JPACT meeting.


ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned,

REPORT WRITTEN BY: Lois Kaplan

COPIES TO: Rena CusmaDick EngstromJPACT Members

SCHEDULE HIGHLIGHTS

AUG '89

SEP '89

ALIGNMENT OPTIONSCONSULTANT CONTRACTS

UMTA REPORTS

OCT '89- DESIGN /MAR '90 ENVIRONMENTAL WORK

MAR

APR

MAY

'90

'90

'90

JUN/JUL'90

SEP '90

SDEIS AVAILABLE FORPUBLIC REVIEW

PUBLIC HEARING ON SDEIS

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

LOCAL DECISION

FEISPRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORTFINANCIAL PLANCOMPLETION OF PE

-MET

WESTS IDE CORRIDOR PROJECTCoordinating development of MAX andhighway improvements on the Westside

REVISED I 1/13/89

(L'fSTiEBDowntown Poul&nd to SVV 135th

Ridership for all options is approxi-mately 30,000 daily passengers in 2005.

All option© dssurr 3 Washington ParkZoo station; a lon'g tunnel with no zoo sta-tion would cost $19.8 million less.

All options assume Burlington-Northernrcule through Central Beaverton; an alter-nate route on Henry Street would costapproximately $10.3 million more, anddisplace 6 additional businesses and 8homes.

Estimated Capital Cost(millions)

Stations1

Park & Ride LotsParking Spaces

Light Rail Vehicles

Estimated Travel Tirr^e2

(Downtown Portland to SW 185th)

Right of Way AcquisitionsHomesBusinesses

1Shbrt-Tunnel and All-Surface options havestation and Park & Ride at Sylvan; longtunnel does not.

'Today's rush-hour bus travel time: 40minutes.

30PT15

Long Tunnel

$496.3

12

5

3,250

31

27 min.

6112

Short TunnelNorth Side

$446.2

13

6

3,530

31

28 min.

6329

All SurfaceSouth Side

$450.9

13

6

3,530

31

28 min.

6329

^TRI-MET


Memorandum

Date: January 29, 1990

To: , / P A C T

From: rAndrew C. Cotugno, Transportation Director

Re: Local Government Dues Assessment

In accordance with ORS 268, the Metro Council must notify localgovernments of the planned dues assessment 120 days prior to thestart of the fiscal year (or by March 1). In addition, Metromust consult with a "local government advisory committee" todetermine whether it is necessary to assess the dues.

In the past, Metro has convened a separate local governmentadvisory committee for this specific purpose due to the lack ofsuch a committee for the Planning and Development aspect of theagency. Now that the Urban Growth Management Policy AdvisoryCommittee is in place, such committees are available for both thePlanning and Development and Transportation aspects of Metro'slocal government dues functions. As such, it is proposed thatthese two committees serve this review function — JPACT for useof dues for Transportation Planning and UGMPAC for Planning andDevelopment. TPAC will be asked to review the TransportationDepartment's portion of the local government dues assessment andmake a recommendation to JPACT.

ACC:lmk

CC: Rena CusmaRichard Carson

STAFF REPORT

CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 90-1213 FOR THE PURPOSEOF PROVIDING THE ASSESSMENT OF DUES TO LOCAL GOVERN-MENTS FOR FY 1990-91.

Date: January 24, 1990 Presented by: Andrew Cotugno

Rich Carson

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS

Assessment Authorization and Procedure

ORS 268.513 (Exhibit A) authorizes the Metro Council to:"charge the cities and counties within the District forthe services and activities carried out under ORS 268.380and 268.390."

If the Council follows the recommendation of the Local GovernmentAdvisory Committee and determines that it is necessary to chargethese local governments, it must establish the total amount to becharged and assess each city and county on the basis of popula-tion. The assessment cannot exceed $.51 per capita per year.

In making the assessment, the Council is required to notify eachcity, county, Tri-Met and the Port of Portland of its intent toassess and the amount of the assessment at least 120 days beforethe beginning of the fiscal year for which the charge will bemade. The notification for the FY 1990-91 assessment must bemade prior to March 2. 1990. Assessments must be paid beforeOctober 1, 1990. •

TPAC has reviewed the proposed dues assessment and recommendsapproval of Resolution No. 90-1213.

Proposed FY 1990-91 Assessment

The attached (Exhibit B) shows the population figures and pro-posed assessment schedule. The values are based upon the latestcertified population figures from the Center for PopulationResearch and Census at Portland State University. Each county'sunincorporated population estimate is based upon data provided bythe Center for Population Research and Census using a formuladevised by Metro staff (Exhibit C).

The total assessment at 51C per capita for cities and countiesand at 12.5 percent of that rate for Tri-Met and the Port ofPortland is $658,432. Consistent with the FY 89-90 budget, theproposed distribution to Metro's planning functions are asfollows:

Actual ProposedFY 89-90 FY 90-91

Transportation Department $397,000 $405,410Planning and Development Department 247,773 253,022

$644,773 $658,432

Transportation Department

Use of the dues for Transportation Planning generally falls intothe following major categories:

1. Grant Match - $122,000 - The dues plus ODOT and Tri-Met localmatch are used to leverage federal funding toward Transporta-tion Planning. The program areas, which will be fullydescribed in the FY 91 Unified Work Program, include:

Model RefinementRegional Transportation Plan1-205, Milwaukie, Hillsboro Alternatives AnalysesTransportation Improvement ProgramBi-State StudySoutheast Corridor StudyCornell/Burnside Traffic StudyRegional LRT System PlanManagement and Coordination

2. Data Resource Center - $168,000 - The Data Resource Centerpublishes periodic updates of historical and forecastedpopulation and employment growth throughout the Portlandmetropolitan area. In addition, the Regional LandInformation System (RLIS) is under development to improve thequality and utility of land use-related data. Fundingsources for the Data Resource Center include dues,transportation grants, solid waste fees and Metro's GeneralFund. Of the total budget, the dues share is approximately25 percent. Revenues collected from data sales are used toreduce the dues share of this budget.

3. Direct Project Costs - $115,000 - A variety of project coststhat may not be grant eligible are funded with 100 percentdues funding. Included are various costs such as furniture,supplies, computers, training, travel, support from publicaffairs and legal counsel and support in participating indevelopment of state land use requirements affecting trans-portation planning.

Planning and Development Department

Dues are used to support the Department's regional planning pro-grams on a proportionate basis. Dues are proposed to be expendedas follows:

Land Use Administration $ 77,071Urban Growth Management . 32,943Parks and Natural Areas 53,666Water Resources Policy 53,033Housing Policy 23,430Local Government Coordination 12,879

$253,022

Metro Excise Tax

The Metro Council is currently contemplating imposition of anexcise tax on its enterprise functions to provide a source offunding for the general government functions of Metro. Theeffect of this action on Metro's planning functions is signifi-cant.

1. Overhead Rate - Each of Metro's department cost for supportservices (such as utilities, accounting, etc.) will bereduced when the general government function begins paying ashare of the support service costs. This results in areduced overhead charge on all Transportation Departmentplanning projects and therefore all dues and grant-fundedactivities.

2. Reduction of Dues - The Metro Council will consider as partof the FY 90-91 budget process a reduction of the dues withsome of the dues-funded functions of the Planning andDevelopment Department funded through the excise tax instead.This potentially represents a reduction to a dues assessmentof 30-35$ per capita.

3. RLIS Implementation Schedule - The Metro Council will beconsidering whether to accelerate the implementation schedulefor RLIS from 28 months to 16 months through contracting outa portion of the development work. Up to $150,000 ofconsultant support is feasible of which a portion could bedues-funded if the excise tax results in a reduction of thedues. Metro staff is recommending a one-third share fromdues funding or $50,000. If this recommendation is adopted,the total dues assessment would be 3 5-40$ per capita.

The final decision on whether an excise tax is imposed, at whatlevel and for what purposes will be finalized by July 1, 1990.In addition, the tax is not final until after the referral periodis concluded. As such, the notification to local governments onthe dues assessment required by March 2, 1990 will be for 51$ percapita. If an excise tax results in a reduction in the dues, thebillings to be sent out after July 1, 1990 will be for thereduced level that is finally adopted through the budget process.

EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

The Executive Officer recommends adoption of Resolution No. 90-1213.

ATTACHMENT AORS 268.513

2 6 8 . 5 1 3 Service charge for planningfunctions of district. (1) The council shallconsult with the advisory committee appointedunder ORS 268.170 before determining whetherit is necessary to charge the cities and countieswithin the district for the services and activitiescarried out under ORS 268.380 and 268.390. Ifthe council determines that it is necessary tocharge cities and counties within the district forany fiscal year, it shall determine the totalamount to be charged and shall assess each cityand county with the portion of the total amountas the population of the portion of the city orcounty within the district bears to the totalpopulation of the district provided, however, thatthe service charge shall not exceed the rate of 51cents per capita per year. For the purposes of thissubsection the population of a county does notinclude the population of any city situated withinthe boundaries of that county. The population ofeach city and county shall be determined in themanner prescribed by the council.

(2) The council shall notify each city andcounty of its intent to assess and the amount itproposes to assess each city and county at least120 days before the beginning of the fiscal yearfor which the charge will be made.

' (3) The decision of the council to charge thecities and counties within the district, and theamount of the charge upon each, shall be bindingupon those cities and counties. Cities and coun-ties shall pay their charge on or before October 1of the fiscal year for which the charge has beenmade.

(4) When the council determines that it isnecessary to impose the service charges author-ized under subsection (1) of this section for anyfiscal year, each mass transit district organizedunder ORS chapter 267 and port located whollyor partly within the district shall also pay aservice charge to the district for that fiscal yearfor the services and activities carried out underORS 268.380 and 268.390. The charge for a masstransit district or port shall be the amountobtained by applying, for the population of themass transit district or port within the bound-aries of the district, a per capita charge that is12-1/2 percent of the per capita rate establishedfor cities and counties for the same fiscal year.Subsections (2) and (3) of this section apply tocharges assessed under this subsection.

ATTACHMENT B

FY 9 0 - 9 1 METRO DUES

JURISDICTION

CLACKAMAS CO. (Unincorp.)Gladstone

Happy ValleyJohnson CityLake OswegoMilwaukie

Oregon CityRivergroveWest Linn

Wilsonville

MULTNOMAH CO. (Unincorp.)FairviewGresham

Maywood ParkPortlandTroutdale

Wood Village

WASHINGTON CO. (Unincorp.)BeavertonCornelius

DurhamForest Grove

HillsboroKing CitySherwood

TigardTualatin

Local Assessment

Port of Portland

Tri-Met

TOTAL PROPOSED ASSESSMENT

POPEST1989

9179096851530480

294281883014975

335142705800

67735197565470

830432175

73752610

126036442655105800

121803381019553000

2705013340

1032835

ASSESS.6

$.51/

$46,812.95$4,939.35

$780.30$244.80

$15,008.28$9,603.30$7,637.25

$170.85$7,277.70$2,958.00

$34,544.94$1,007.25$33,389.70

$423.30$220,409.25

$3,761.25$1,331.10

$64,278.49$22,575.15$2,603.55

$408.00$6,211.80

$17,243.10$997.05

$1,530.00$13,795.50$6,803.40

$526,745.60

$65,843.20

$65,843.20

$658,432.00

INMETRO

187123

578170

267541

1032835

TOTALCOUNTY

265500

581000

295000

1141500

NOT INMETRO

78377

2830

27459

108665

ATTACHMENT C

Population estimates are based on the July 1, 1989 certified estimates of populationfor Orgeon prepared by the Center for Population Research and Census, Portland StateUniversity. The unincorporated county population estimate inside Metro is basedupon data from the 1980 U.S. Census and from the 1980 Center for Population Researchand Census estimates.

CLACKAMAS COUNTY

1989 Unincorporated population estimate = 1523171980 Census unincorporated population = 146265

Difference = 6052

6052 / 146265 = 0.0414

0.0414 * 88143 (1980 inside Metro) = 3647

3647 + 88143 (1980 inside Metro) = 91790

MULTNOMAH COUNTY

1989 Unincorporated population estimate = 705651980 Census unincorporated population = 150839

Difference = -80274

-80274 / 150839 = -0.5322

-0.5322 * 144790 (1980 inside Metro) = -77055

-77055 + 144790 (1980 inside Metro) = 67735

WASHINGTON COUNTY

1989 Unincorporated population estimate = 1518451980 Census unincorporated population — 141368

Difference = 10477

10477 / 141368 = 0.0741

0.0741 * 117340 (1980 inside Metro) = 8696

8696 + 117340 (1980 inside Metro) = 126036

BEFORE THE COUNCIL OF THEMETROPOLITAN SERVICE DISTRICT

FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING ) RESOLUTION NO. 90-1213THE ASSESSMENT OF DUES TO LOCAL ) Introduced by Tanya Collier,GOVERNMENTS FOR FY 1990-91 ) Presiding Officer

WHEREAS, ORS 268.513 authorizes the Council of the

Metropolitan Service District (Metro) to "charge the cities and

counties within the District for the services and activities

carried out under ORS 268.380 and 268.390"; and

WHEREAS, Metro Ordinance 84-180 requires the Metro

Council to seek the advice of the Local Government Advisory

Committee regarding the assessment of dues as authorized by

ORS 268.513; and

WHEREAS, The Joint Policy Advisory Committee on

Transportation and the Urban Growth Management Policy Advisory

Committee were appointed as the Local Government Advisory Committee

by Resolution No. 90-1212 and this requirement has been fulfilled;

now, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED:

1. That the Metro Council hereby establishes local

government dues assessment within the District in the amount of

$.51 per capita for FY 1990-91.

2. That notification of the assessment be sent to all

cities and counties within the District, Tri-Met and the Port of

Portland prior to March 2, 1990.

ADOPTED by the Metro Council this day of February,

1990.

Tanya Collier, Presiding Officer

ACC: link90-1213.RES1-30-90

STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No.Meeting Date

CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 90-1189 FOR THE PURPOSE OFADOPTING THE JOINT POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPOR-TATION (JPACT) BYLAWS

Date: December 5, 1989 Presented by: Andrew C. Cotugno

PROPOSED ACTION

Adoption of this resolution by JPACT and the Metro Council wouldestablish bylaws for JPACT defining roles, responsibilities,membership and other operating procedures. These bylaws, as pro-posed, largely codify existing practices. One addition is alsoproposed as an amendment — to add membership to JPACT for allOregon cities with a population in excess of 60,000. At thistime, this would result in the addition of the City of Gresham tothe Committee.


On January 10, 1989, the Clark County Intergovernmental ResourceCenter requested the addition of C-TRAN as a member of JPACT torepresent the transit interests in Clark County. Subsequently,on March 10, 1989, the City of Gresham requested a seat on JPACTindependent of the "Cities of Multnomah County" to represent themajority of population in the East Multnomah County area. Inorder to consider these requests and to review the overall roleand responsibilities of JPACT, a JPACT Membership Committee wasformed at the May 11, 1989 JPACT meeting consisting of thefollowing individuals:

Mike Ragsdale, Committee Chair, MetroEarl Blumenauer, PortlandPauline Anderson, Multnomah CountyClifford Clark, Cities of Washington CountyScott Collier, VancouverBob Bothman, ODOTGary Demich, WDOT

The Committee met on a number of occasions to review the currentJPACT operations, consider possible changes in organizationalstructure and develop an overall recommendation for considera-tion. Since JPACT bylaws have never been adopted, it was thegeneral consensus of the Committee that recommendations regardingcommittee roles, responsibilities and membership be establishedthrough adoption of a set of bylaws. Major issues discussed bythe Committee included:

a. Whether there should be one Metropolitan Planning Organiza-tion (MPO) for the Portland-Vancouver area, or two, as thereis now.

b. With two MPO's, whether representation from Washington onJPACT should be restricted to one member or expanded to fourwith the addition of C-TRAN.

c. If Gresham is added, whether additional "city" representativesshould be added from other parts of the region — eitherthrough a population threshold of 30-40,000 or simply byadding an additional "city" representative from each county.

d. Whether the Metro Council needs to approve JPACT actions, howthe MPO designation has been made, and whether a Councilchange to a JPACT action would affect the MPO designation.

e. Concern over the current inequity in representation with theability of voting members with little or no direct transpor-tation operating responsibility being able to out-vote thosemembers with the majority of operating responsibility.

f. Whether to change to a weighted vote to more accuratelyreflect population.

g. Concern over the size of the Committee, the need for a smallerworking group, and the need to reduce the demands on individ-uals resulting from numerous subcommittees.

h. Whether to form an Executive Committee to handle routine JPACTbusiness.

i. Whether to make future changes in the bylaws difficult througha two-thirds vote requirement.

j. Whether to include an automatic sunset clause to ensure theissue is revisited if a major change in structure is adopted.

k. Whether JPACT membership should be restricted to electedofficials and board members or open to staff representativesfrom designated agencies.

In addition, background material was provided to the full JPACTon statutory authority (state and federal), population shares foreach voting member, current appointment procedures for "city"representatives, current TPAC bylaws and current membership forthe Clark County Intergovernmental Resource Center, WashingtonCounty Transportation Coordinating Committee, East MultnomahCounty Transportation Committee and Clackamas County Transporta-tion Committee.

At the September 14, 1989 JPACT meeting, a "draft" set of bylawswere reviewed and a series of options to the status quo werediscussed:

Option 1: To reduce JPACT membership;

Option 2: To increase JPACT membership; and

Option 3: To create an Executive Committee with expanded member-ship on the full JPACT and reduced membership on theExecutive Committee.

Based upon discussion at the JPACT meeting and a subsequentMembership Committee meeting, a recommended set of bylaws werepresented to the November 9, 1989 JPACT meeting. The key com-ponents of the recommendation were as follows:

a. The bylaws identified existing roles and provided for eventualinclusion of an Arterial Fund when it is established.

b. Actions requiring Council approval were identified to includeCouncil approval; the remainder were identified on a JPACT-only action.

c. Membership was recommended to be expanded to include C-TRANand one additional "city" representative from each county.

d. An Executive Committee was recommended with 9-11 members toserve in an advisory capacity on all action items scheduledfor the full JPACT.

e. Membership from Tri-Met and the Port of Portland was recom-mended to be restricted to board members only.

f. Amendment to the bylaws was recommended to require a two-thirds vote of the full JPACT and a two-thirds vote of theMetro Council.

There was, however, general disagreement by many JPACT membersthat many of these changes should be adopted. There was par-ticular disagreement to increases in membership and formation ofan Executive Committee. At the instruction of the Chair, abylaws proposal was recommended for consideration at the Decem-ber 14, 1989 meeting that largely institutionalizes status quo.As such, the bylaws recommended for adoption by this resolutioninclude the following key components:

a. Existing roles and responsibilities are identified.

b. All JPACT actions are forwarded to the Metro Council foradoption; the Gouncil will adopt or refer the item back toJPACT with specific recommendations on all actions except theRegional Transportation Plan; final adoption of the RegionalTransportation Plan as a regional functional plan rests withthe Metro Council.

c. Membership is retained at the status quo, with the exceptionthat the three State of Washington seats can be filled byVancouver, Clark County, WDOT or C-TRAN.

d. Members from agencies can be board members or principal staff.

e. An Executive Committee is not recommended.

In addition to the bylaws as recommended by this resolution, alsoincluded is an amendment for consideration. The amendment wouldadd JPACT membership for all cities exceeding 60,000 population,which would include the City of Gresham at this time.

During the process, letters were received from Clark County IRC,Washington County, Tri-Met, Gresham and Lake Oswego (attached).


The Executive Officer recommends approval of Resolution No. 90-1189.


FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADOPTING THE )JOINT POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE )ON TRANSPORTATION (JPACT) BYLAWS )

RESOLUTION NO. 90-1189Introduced byMike Ragsdale,Presiding Officer

WHEREAS, Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations,

Part 450, and Title 45, Part 613, require establishment of a

Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in each urbanized area;

and

WHEREAS, These regulations require that principal

elected officials of general purpose local governments be repre-

sented on the Metropolitan Planning Organization to the extent

agreed to among the units of local government and the governor;

and

WHEREAS, The Governor of the State of Oregon, on Novem-

ber 6, 1979, designated the Metropolitan Service District as the

Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Oregon•portion of the

Portland urbanized area; and

WHEREAS, The Governor of the State of Washington, on

January 1, 1979, designated the Intergovernmental Resource Center

of Clark County as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the

Washington portion of the Portland-Vancouver urbanized area; and

WHEREAS, ORS 268 requires the Metropolitan Service

District to prepare and adopt a functional plan for transporta-

tion ; and

WHEREAS, The involvement of local elected officials and

representatives from transportation operating agencies is essen-

tial for the successful execution of these responsibilities; now,

therefore

BE IT RESOLVED:

That the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transporta-

tion and the Council of the Metropolitan Service District adopt

the JPACT Bylaws as shown in Exhibit A.

ADOPTED by the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on

Transportation this day of ___, 1990.

Mike Ragsdale, JPACT Chair

ADOPTED by the Council of the Metropolitan Service

District this day of , 1990.

Mike Ragsdale, Presiding Officer

ACC:lmk:mk90-1189.RES1-29-90

EXHIBIT A

JOINT POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION(JPACT)

BYLAWS

ARTICLE I

This committee shall be known as the JOINT POLICY ADVISORYCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION (JPACT).

ARTICLE IIMISSION

It is the mission of JPACT to coordinate the development ofplans defining required regional transportation improvements, todevelop a consensus of governments on the prioritization of re-quired improvements and to promote and facilitate the implemen-tation of identified priorities.

ARTICLE IIIPURPOSE

Section 1. The purpose of JPACT is as follows:

a. To provide the forum of general purpose local govern-ments and transportation agencies required for designation of theMetropolitan Service District as the metropolitan planning organ-ization for the Oregon urbanized portion of the Portland metro-politan area and to provide a mechanism for coordination andconsensus on regional transportation priorities and to advocatefor their implementation.

b. To provide recommendations to the Metro Council understate land use requirements for the purpose of adopting andenforcing the Regional Transportation Plan.

c. To coordinate on transportation issues of bi-statesignificance with the Clark County, Washington metropolitanplanning organization and elected officials.

d. (Pending establishment of an Urban Arterial Fund) Toestablish the program of projects for disbursement from the UrbanArterial Fund.

Section 2. In accordance with these purposes, the principalduties of JPACT are as follows:

a. To approve and submit to the Metro Council for adoptionthe Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and periodic amendments.

b. To approve and submit to the Metro Council for adoptionshort and long-range growth forecasts and periodic amendmentsupon which the RTP and other Metro functional plans will bebased.

c. To approve and submit to the Metro Council for adoptionthe Unified Work Program (UWP) and periodic amendments for theOregon and Washington portions of the metropolitan area. TheMetro Council will adopt the recommended action or refer it backto JPACT with a recommendation for amendment.

d. To approve and submit to the Metro Council for adoptionthe Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and periodic amend-ments. The Metro Council will adopt the recommended action orrefer it back to JPACT with a recommendation for amendment.

e. To approve and submit to the Metro Council for adoptionthe transportation portion of the State Implementation Plan forAir Quality Attainment for submission to the Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality. The Metro Council will adopt the recom-mended action or refer it back to JPACT with a recommendation foramendment.

f. To periodically adopt positions that represent the con-sensus agreement of the governments throughout the region ontransportation policy matters, including adoption of regionalpriorities on federal funding, the Surface Transportation Act,the Six-Year Highway Improvement Program priorities and regionalpriorities for LRT funding. The Metro Council will adopt therecommended action or refer it back to JPACT with a recommenda-topm for amendment.

g. To review and comment on the RTP and TIP for the ClarkCounty portion of the metropolitan area and include in the RTPand TIP for the Oregon urbanized portion of the metropolitan areaa description of issues of bi-state significance and how they arebeing addressed.

h. To review and comment, as needed, on the regional com-ponents of local comprehensive plans, public facility plans andtransportation plans and programs of ODOT, Tri-Met and the localjurisdictions.

ARTICLE IVCOMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Section 1. Membership

a. The Committee will be made up of representatives of thefollowing jurisdictions and agencies:

City of Portland 1Multnomah County , . . 1Washington County 1Clackamas County 1Cities of Multnomah County 1Cities of Washington County 1Cities of Clackamas County 1Oregon Department of Transportation 1Tri-Met 1Port of Portland 1Department of Environmental Quality 1Metropolitan Service District (Metro) 3State of Washington _J1

TOTAL 17

b. Alternates may be appointed to serve in the absence ofthe regular members.

c. Members and alternates will be individuals in a positionto represent the policy interests of their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Appointment of Members and Alternates

a. Members and alternates from the City of Portland and theCounties of Multnomah, Washington and Clackamas will be electedofficials from those jurisdictions and will be appointed by thechief elected official of the jurisdiction. The member andalternate will serve until removed by the appointing jurisdic-tion.

b. Members and alternates from the Cities of Multnomah,Washington and Clackamas Counties will be elected officials fromthe represented cities and will be appointed through the use of amail ballot of all represented cities based upon a consensusfield of candidates developed through a forum convened by thelargest city being represented. The member and alternate will befrom different jurisdictions. The member and alternate willserve for two-year terms. In the event the member's position isvacated, the alternate will automatically become member andcomplete the original term of office. The member and alternatewill periodically consult with the appropriate transportationcoordinating committees for their area.

c. Members and alternates from the two statewide agencies(Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and Oregon Departmentof Transportation) will be a principal staff representative ofthe agency and will be appointed by the director of the agency.The member and alternate will serve until removed by theappointing agency.

d. Members and alternates from the two tri-county agencies(Tri-Met and the Port of Portland) will be appointed by the chiefboard member of the agency. The member and alternate will serveuntil removed by the appointing agency.

e. Members and alternate from the Metropolitan ServiceDistrict will be elected officials and will be appointed by thePresiding Officer of the Metro Council in consultation with theMetro Executive Officer and will represent a broad cross-sectionof geographic areas. The members and alternate will serve untilremoved by the Presiding Officer of the Metro Council.

f. Members and alternate from the State of Washington willbe either elected officials or principal staff representativesfrom Clark County, the cities of Clark County, the WashingtonDepartment of Transportation or C-TRAN. The members will beappointed by the Clark County Intergovernmental Resource Centerand will serve until removed by the appointing agency.

ARTICLE VMEETINGS, CONDUCT OF MEETINGS, QUORUM

a. Regular meetings of the Committee will be held monthlyat a time and place established by the chairperson. Specialmeetings may be called by the chairperson or a majority of themembership.

b. A majority of the voting members (or designated alter-nates) of the full Committee shall constitute a quorum for theconduct of business. The act of a majority of those present atmeetings at which a quorum is present shall be the act of theCommittee.

c. Subcommittees to develop recommendations for JPACT canbe appointed by the Chair. The Chair will consult on subcommit-tee membership and charge with the full membership at a regularlyscheduled meeting. Subcommittee members can include JPACTmembers, JPACT alternates and/or outside experts.

d. All meetings shall be conducted in accordance withRobert's Rules of Order. Newlv Revised.

e. The Committee may establish other rules of procedure asdeemed necessary for the conduct of business.

f. Each member shall be entitled to one (1) vote on allissues presented at regular and special meetings of the Commit-tee. In the absence of the member, the alternate shall be en-titled to one (1) vote. The chairperson shall vote only in caseof a tie.

g. Unexcused absence from regularly scheduled meetings forthree (3) consecutive months shall require the chairperson tonotify the appointing agency with a request for remedial action.In the case of the representative for the "cities" of Multnomah,Washington and Clackamas Counties, the chairperson will contactthe largest city being represented to convene a forum of repre-sented cities to take remedial action.

h. The Committee shall make its reports and findings publicand available to the Metro Council.

i. Metro shall provide staff, as necessary, to record theactions of the Committee and to handle Committee business,correspondence and public information.

ARTICLE VIOFFICERS AND DUTIES

a. The chairperson and vice-chairperson of the Committeeshall be designated by the Metro Presiding Officer.

b. The chairperson shall preside at all meetings he/sheattends and shall be responsible for the expeditious conduct ofthe Committee's business.

c. In the absence of the chairperson, the vice-chairpersonshall assume the duties of the chairperson.

ARTICLE VIIRECOGNITION OF TPAC

a. The Committee will take into consideration the alterna-tives and recommendations of the Transportation Policy Alterna-tives Committee (TPAC) in the conduct of its business.

ARTICLE VIIIAMENDMENTS

a. These bylaws may be amended or repealed only by a two-thirds vote of the full membership of the Committee and a two-thirds vote of the Metro Council.

BYLAWS.NEWACC:lmk:mkRev. 1-29-69

JPACT BYLAWS

- PROPOSED AMENDMENT #1

Article IV - Committee Membership

Section 1. Membership

City of Gresham __i

Total 18


c. Member(s) and alternate(s) from all Oregon cities withpopulation in excess of 60,000 will be elected officials fromthose jurisdictions and will be appointed by the chief electedofficial of the jurisdiction. The member(s) and alternate(s)will serve until removed by the appointing jurisdiction.

90-1189.RES

JPACT BYLAWS

- PROPOSED AMENDMENT #2 -(in lieu of Amendment #1)



b. Members and alternates from the Cities of Multnomah,Washington and Clackamas Counties will be elected officials fromthe represented cities and will be appointed through the use of amail ballot of all represented cities based upon a consensusfield of candidates developed through a forum convened by thelargest city being represented. The member and alternate will befrom different jurisdictions, one of which will be from the cityof largest population (after the Citv of Portland)• The memberand alternate will serve for two-year terms. In the event themember's position is vacated, the alternate will automaticallybecome member and complete the original term of office. Themember and alternate will periodically consult with theappropriate transportation coordinating committees for theirarea.

90-1189.RES12-11-89

JPACT BYLAWS

~ PROPOSED AMENDMENT #3 -

Article VIII - Amendments

a. These bylaws may be amended or repealed only by a [two-thirds] majority vote of the full membership of the Committee anda [two-thirds] majority vote of the Metro Council.

90-1189.RES12-11-89

JPACT BYLAWS

- PROPOSED AMENDMENT #4 -Submitted by Clifford Clark

Article V - Meetings, Conduct of Meetings, Quorum

a. Regular meetings of the Committee will be held monthly ata time and place established by the chairperson. Specialmeetings may be called by the chairperson or a majority of themembership. No special meeting mav be held without five workingdavs' notice to members and alternates.

b. A majority of the voting members (or designated alter-nates) of the full Committee shall constitute a quorum for theconduct of business. The act of a majority of those present atmeetings at which a quorum is present shall be the act of theCommitteef except for amendments to these bylaws.

c. Subcommittees to develop recommendations for JPACT can beappointed by the Chair. The Chair will consult on subcommitteemembership and charge with the full membership at a regularlyscheduled meeting. Subcommittee members can include JPACTmembers, JPACT alternates and/or outside experts. JPACT membersshall hold a majority of the seats on any subcommittee.

Bylaws.new1-30-90

10

PROPOSED AMENDMENT #5

JPACT BYLAWS



f. Members and alternate from the State of Washington willbe either elected officials or principal staff representatives fromClark County, the cities of Clark County the city of Vancouver, theWashington Department of Transportation, ea? and C-TRAN. Themembers will be appointed by the—Clark County IntergovernmentalResource Center Clark County, the city of Vancouver, the WashingtonDepartment of Transportation and C-Tran and will serve untilremoved by the appointing agencies. The three Washington memberswill be selected by the IRC Transportation Policy Committee.

STAFF REPORT Agenda Item NoMeeting Date _

CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 90-1218 FOR THE PURPOSE OFAMENDING THE REGION'S PRIORITY HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS FORINCLUSION IN THE 1991-1996 ODOT SIX-YEAR HIGHWAY PROGRAM

Date: January 31, 1990 Presented by: Andrew C. Cotugno

PRQPOSED ACTION

This resolution will amend Resolution No. 89-1134A which adopted theregion's priorities for inclusion in the ODOT Six-Year Program updateas follows:

In accordance with the resolution reconfirming the priority ofthose projects currently committed for funding in the Six-YearProgram, the Terwilliger Bridge replacement is recognized as onesuch project.


Since adoption of Resolution No. 89-1134A, the following two itemshave been requested by Portland and Multnomah County:

1. Terwilliger Bridge — Replacement of the Terwilliger Bridge over1-5 is proposed due to the structural deficiency of this bridgeas well as the need to redesign it in accordance with the sched-uled interchange upgrade on 1-5 at Terwilliger and Barbur. Theproject was previously included as a regional priority andcommitted for funding by ODOT using federal bridge replacement(HBR) funding. When HBR funds dried up, ODOT gave a preliminaryindication that Interstate-4R funding would be used instead dueto the integral nature of the new bridge with the upgradedinterchange. This funding commitment has not as yet been made byODOT. This resolution requests that ODOT include this project intheir next update.

2. Sandy Boulevard, east of 1-205 — There have been recent requestsby the business community along Sandy Boulevard to programimprovements to handle recent and expected growth in the area.In response, ODOT has completed a traffic study and identifiedwhich improvements are needed now, within a 5-10 year time frameand in the long range. Based upon the ranking criteria used forthe other Six-Year Program priorities, the following phases ofimprovement ranked as follows (see Attachment A) :

1-205 - 102nd 11 points102nd - 112th 10 points112th - 181st 12 points181st - 207th 11 points

In Resolution No. 89-1134A, the minimum score required forinclusion was 15 which is not met by any of these projects. Assuch, they are not recommended as regional priorities at thistime. In addition, Sandy Boulevard is one of many ODOT arterialsin the Portland metro area that ODOT has indicated is not ofstatewide significance and, therefore, they are seeking totransfer jurisdiction to Portland and Multnomah County. In orderto gain a commitment from ODOT to fund these improvements, itwill likely be necessary for the local jurisdictions and propertyowners to develop a cost-sharing proposal that shares the finan-cial burden,


The Executive Officer recommends approval of Resolution No. 90-1218.

ACC: mk

Attachment

Attachment A

Project Rankings for the 1991-1996 Six-Tear Program Update

Facility

(U.S. 30)Sandy Boulevard




Terwilliger

Proiect Limits

1-205 - 102nd

102nd - 112th

112th - 181st

181st - 1-84Ramps

Overcrossing(Terwilliger

Bridge)

Project

Ramp ImprovementNone

Widen to 5 Lanes

Widen to 5 Lanes

Widen to 5 Lanes

ReconstructionImprove Access

to 1-5

1987_Vi£

.708

ATT

.793

.719

1.028

Rating(Points)

Low(1 pt.)

Low(1 pt.)

Low(1 pt.)

Low(1 pt.)

High(3 pts.)

Rating Rating 1998 Rating 1998 RatingV/C (Points) Rate (Points) Jfflfi (Points) _&£ (Points) VHP (Points) V/C > .9 Development (Points) tost

Low(1 pt.)

High(3 pts.)

Low(1 pt.)

Low(1 pt.)

High(3 pts.)

2.67

.89

Low .997 High 4.51 Low(1 pt.) (3 pts.) (1 pt.)

Low(1 pt.)

Low(1 pt.)

.14 Low(1 pt.)

Low 1.032(1 pt.)

Low(1 pt.)

High(3 pts.)

Low(1 pt.)

(2 pts.)

.999 High 11.07 Low(3 pts.) (1 pt.)

High(3 pts.)

.91 Low(1 pt.)

Tes

Yes

»centlopmenl

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Ratingt (Points)

High(3 pts.)

Hed.(2 pts.)

High(3 pts.)

High(3 pts.)

Hed.(2 pts.)

Est.tost

-

-

-

-

$5.9 a.

2005VHT/VT

3,701.9

2.443.4

24,494.7

7,066.9

916.9

Costper 2005. YHT

6,434.73

Rating(Points)

Low(1 pt.)

Low(1 pt.)

Low(1 pt.)

Low(1 pt.)

Low(1 pt.)

Total(Points)

11

10

12

11

H

1985-88Accident


FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING THE ) RESOLUTION NO. 90-1218REGION'S PRIORITY HIGHWAY IMPROVE- ) Introduced byMENTS FOR INCLUSION IN THE 1991-1996 ) Tanya Collier,ODOT SIX-YEAR HIGHWAY PROGRAM ) Presiding Officer

WHEREAS, Metro Resolution No. 89-1134A established the

region's priorities for inclusion of projects in the 1991-1996

ODOT Six-Year Program update; and

WHEREAS, Additional requests relating to the

Terwilliger Bridge have been submitted by Portland and Multnomah

County; and

WHEREAS, The Terwilliger Bridge was previously

identified as a regional priority and included in the previous

Six-Year Program;-now, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED:

1. That the Council of the Metropolitan Service Dis-

trict reconfirms the Terwilliger Bridge as a previous regional

priority commitment.

2. The staff is directed to forward this priority in

testimony during the appropriate hearings on the Six-Year Program

update by ODOT,

3. That this action is consistent with the Regional

Transportation Plan.

ADOPTED by the Council of the Metropolitan Service

District this day of , 1990.

Tanya Collier, Presiding Officer


Memorandum

Date:

To:

From:

Re:

January 29, 1990

JPACT

f^Andrew c. Cotugno, Transportation Director

Surface Transportation Act Update

Attached is a set of draft JPACT principles forthe next Surface Transportation Act Update. Thisis intended to serve as a means of reaching con-sensus on the region's priorities for the updatefor purposes of coordinating our legislativeefforts in Washington, D.C. on this matter.

ACC:lmk

Attachment

Surface Transportation Act UpdateJPACT Policy Position

Major Principles

1. The Federal Government has a role in serving interstate,urban and rural transportation needs and federal involvementshould be retained and enhanced.

2. The Federal Government should meet its full responsibilityfor interstate rehabilitation and modernization.

3. Addressing urban mobility and congestion is a nationalproblem affecting national economic vitality and inter-national competitiveness. Federal support for a compre-hensive approach to addressing the urban mobility problemthrough the most cost-effective local improvement program ofhighways, transit and arterials should be adopted.

4. The gas tax commitment to the federal transit program shouldbe significantly increased, especially for New Rail Starts.

5. General Fund support for Section 9 and Section 18 routinecapital and operating assistance programs should be con-tinued.

6. Incentives should be included for effective comprehensiveland use planning.

Other Issues

1. There should be no federal restrictions on each state'sability to levy weight-mile taxes on trucks.

2. Federal funding programs, match ratios and requirementsshould support implementation of the most cost-effectivesolution and not create an artificial bias for freewayimprovements vs. arterials vs. bus service vs. rail.

3. Aging of the American population creates a greater federalemphasis for elderly and disabled transportation.

4. Oregon should continue to have access to a discretionarybridge replacement and rehabilitation program.

5. Parking subsidies from employers as a tax deductible itemshould be treated equal to transit subsidies.

6. The "one-corridor-at-a-time" rule for New Rail Starts shouldbe improved and rationalized to be responsive to the fullspectrum of costs and benefits. More appropriate cost-effectiveness standards should be established.

ACC:mk:ImkSURF0125.P0S1-30-90

Surface Transportation Act UpdateJPACT Policy Position

Major Principles

1. The Federal Government has a role in serving interstate,urban and rural transportation needs and federal involvementshould be retained and enhanced.

2. The Federal Government should meet its full responsibilityfor interstate rehabilitation and modernization.

3. Addressing urban mobility and congestion is a nationalproblem affecting national economic vitality and inter-national competitiveness. Federal support for a compre-hensive approach to addressing the urban mobility problemthrough the most cost-effective local improvement program ofhighways, transit and arterials should be adopted.

4. The federal commitment to the transit program should besignificantly increased, especially for New Rail Starts. Inaddition, the Section 9 and Section 18 routine capital andoperating assistance programs should be at least continuedor expanded.

5. Incentives should be included for effective comprehensiveland use planning.

Other Issues

1. Federal funding programs, match ratios and requirementsshould support implementation of the most cost-effectivesolution and not create an artificial bias for freewayimprovements vs. arterials vs. bus service vs. rail.

2. The "one corridor-at-a-time" rule for New Rail Starts shouldbe improved and rationalized to be responsible to the fullspectrum of costs and benefits. More appropriate cost-effectiveness standards should be established.

3. Aging of the American population creates a greater federalemphasis for elderly and disabled transportation.

4. Oregon should continue to have access to a discretionarybridge replacement and rehabilitation program.

5. Parking subsidies from employers as a tax deductible itemshould be treated equal to transit subsidies.

6. Each state should have the ability to levy taxes on trucks.

ACCrmk:ImkSTA.POS2-5-90

BALLOT MEASURE 1FACT SHEET

Ballot Measure 1 amends Oregon's Con-stitution to provide local voter control overhow local vehicle revenues can be used tomeet local transportation needs. Publicconcern is mounting regarding how to main-tain Oregon's quality of life as the state'spopulation grows. How local transportationneeds will be met is a particular concern.Ballot Measure 1 provides local voters a toolto meet this challenge.

Current state law already permits a localvehicle fee. Unfortunately, because of theway Oregon's Constitution is written, localvoters are not provided the opportunity todecide what type of transportation programbest meets their local needs. The OregonConstitution limits the option of using localvehicle fees to road improvements only. As aresult, even if a community decides that thebest use of their local vehicle revenue is atransportation program that combines roadand transit improvements, the Constitutionwould not allow a local vote on this program.

The State Legislature proposed this amend-ment to Oregon'^ Constitution to provide acomplete scope of local voter control. Theamendment grants local voters the right todecide the type of transportation program onwhich its local vehicle revenues can be spent

Ballot Measure 1 will not add any new vehiclefees. It simply removes the constitutionalrestriction which prohibits local voters fromdetermining the use of their local vehicle fees.

TRANSIT 2000

Executive Summaryof the American Public Transit Association's

Transit 2000 Task ForceFinal Report

No threat to the quality of life in ourcommunities is greater than the continuingdecline of mobility. Explosive growth intravel demand, inattention to transportationinvestment needs, the harmful consequencesof land use decisions, and our insatiableappetite for automobile use are overwhelm-ing our transportation systems and facili-ties. In turn, the increasing inability of thosetransportation systems to handle the effi-cient movement of people and goods under-mines our regional economies, weakens ourinternational economic competitiveness, anddramatically diminishes the quality of ourenvironment.

In the face of these challenges, we areafforded a rare opportunity to fashion a newgeneration of national transportation poli-cies, as current federal programs expire andnew national leadership embarks on an effortto formulate new policies to guide futuretransportation investment in America.

In response to these challenges and oppor-tunities, the APTA Transit 2000 Task Force

was formed in 1987 to explore how we cancreate more productive and liveableVcom-munities, and to outline the major contri-bution that public transportation can makein that effort. The Task Force believes thatthe fundamental principles and program rec-ommendations that are highlighted herereflect the kind of perspective that mustgovern transportation policy if we are tomove wisely into the twenty-first century.

The conclusions of the Task Force, whichare drawn from the 1989 Final Report, cen-ter on the need to:

— more closely integrate transportationand other national goals and policies;

— provide viable options to dependenceon the auto;

— retool and redirect federal transporta-tion programs to reflect the above; and,

— increase investment in the nation'stransportation systems and services.

The recommendations also serve to stronglyreinforce the growing importance of publictransportation in the years ahead.

1APTA

THE FORCESIn communities across the country, we currently are

faced with a daunting array of troubling conditions thatare growing to crisis proportions. Our shared experi-ence now includes:

— Intolerable and costly congestion on urban andsuburban roads with too many vehicles seekingto use limited roadway facilities;

— Increasing isolation of rural residents, the poor,the elderly, those with disabilities, and willingworkers from job opportunities;

— Poisoned air that already threatens the health ofnearly 150 million Americans;

— Mounting dependence on foreign oil that hasbecome a threat to national security and a majorfactor in the nation's trade deficit;

— Sluggish rural economic growth due, in part, toinadequate transportation services and facilities;

— Burgeoning urban and suburban development thathas overwhelmed our ability to provide publicfacilities and services; and,

— Failure of our existing infrastructure, resultingfrom 20 years of chronic under-investment.

These conditions exist, in part, because our existingnational transportation policies and programs are increas-ingly ineffective in meeting current and emerging needs.Current programs promote separation in the planningand funding of different facilities and they are largely

unresponsive to the broader consequences of transpor-tation investment decisions. The inflexible, categori-cal nature of existing programs limits how we deployavailable resources and decreases the cost-effectivenessand efficiency of our investments. We remain boundby a traditional preoccupation with accommodatingvehicles and an inattention to accommodating people.Finally, existing programs have become ineffective due tothe lack of adequate funds, generally, and insufficientsupport for public transportation, specifically.

Our success as a nation in accommodating futuredemand for travel and mobility will determine whetherwe can arrest the problems that confront us or whetherthey will further diminish our national welfare.

In the next 32 years, by conservative estimates, thenation will experience the same increase in total travelthat we have experienced in the last 32 years. If weattempt to cope with future growth in travel demand aswe have in the past, through overwhelming reliance onsingle-occupancy, personal vehicles, the crises notedabove will accelerate, further undercutting economicgrowth and our competitiveness as a nation, and degrad-ing the quality of life for millions.

To avoid this prospect we must begin immediately toseek wiser ways to meet tomorrow's mobility needs. If weare successful, our transportation decisions can be deci-sive in taming the forces that threaten to immobilize us.

"Greater use of mass transit will in turn increasethe capacity of our existing roads."—Rep. RogerRoy, Chairman, Transportation Committee, StateHouse of Representatives, Dover, Delaware

"... if the largest single source of air pollutionin this country is vehicle emissions, does it makeany sense to design a federal clean air policy withno effort to entice people out of their cars . . . ?"-David R. Boldt, Editorial Page Editor, The Phila-delphia Enquirer

"In the United States alone, we could save33 million gallons of gasoline each day andsignificantly reduce car air pollution if the averagecommuter passenger load were increased by oneperson."— Andrew Kimbrell, Environmental LawAttorney, Foundation on Economic Trends, PolicyDirector, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

NATIONAL POLICYDIRECTIONS

The initial goals of our past surface transporta-tion programs have been met largely with the com-pletion of the Interstate Highway System and thesuccessful transition of our urban transit systemsinto mature public services . ^ e proWerns we con-front as a nation and the varying mix of circum-stances that arise locally require that we adopt anew perspectiveand hew transportation goals atthe national lev^l. New national policy must directus to invest in mobility rather than in modes, andto use our transportation investments to better serveother critical national goals.

Enhanced Mobility

"The availability of the labor force isdirectly tied to the quality of our trans-portation systems. Economic develop-ment will grind to a halt and our urbanareas will decay if we fail to connectworkers with work"—Gilbert Wertzel,Executive Director Greater PhiladelphiaEconomic Development Coalition

"The economic benefits [oftransit] willbe in less road construction and mainte-nance, less work time lost to commutes,less destruction from acid rain, andreduced health care costs."— Carolyn Bovat, American LungAssociation of California

Enhanced mobility in the movement of people andgoods is the fundamental goal to be served by a newgeneration of national transportation policies andprograms.

One of the basic tenets of a new national policyaimed at enhancing mobility must be a commitment toreducing growth in vehicle-miles-traveled ("VMT")and meeting passenger travel demands without neces-sarily accepting continued, unrestrained growth invehicle traffic.

The distinction between meeting the needs of pas-sengers vs. accommodating ever-increasing numbersof vehicles is fundamental. We have a diminishingsupply of roadway capacity and limited ability, resources,and will to expand our highway network aggressively.Added to this scenario is an increasingly harmful set ofconsequences associated with our dependence on single-occupany vehicles.

With mobility as our basic goal, national policiesand programs should result in a wider array of trans-portation options tailored to specific markets anddesigned to dampen growth in vehicle-miles of travel,and increase availability and use of transit and otherforms of high-occupancy, shared-ride services.

National policy must be directed to making substan-tial progress in these terms, in order to better serve ourmobility goals.

Integrating Transportation andOther National Goals

Problems of congestion, air quality, energy depen-dence, declining competitiveness of business and indus-try, declining rural economic well-being, and isolationof increasing numbers of our people traditionally havebeen addressed by national policy as independent prob-lems. In fact, they are closely related, and nowhere isthis relationship stronger than through the linkage pro-vided by our transportation policies and investments.

One of the foremost challenges we face is to providefor our growing transportation needs in closer coordi-nation with efforts to achieve other major national goals.Transportation investment decisions and the productsof our transportation planning must be viewed directlyas tools to increase economic growth, clean our air,conserve our energy resources, as well as improvemobility. Transportation investments that waste energy,foul our air, dissipate the economic strength, and unravelthe social fabric of our communities must be chal-lenged and rejected.

Our success in crafting a new generation of nationaltransportation policies and programs will depend onhow skillfully and at what pace we embrace mobilityas a goal, and link transportation and other nationalpolicies and actions.

WHAT PUBLICTRANSIT CAN

DELIVER

CongestionRelief

ReducedHighwayCost

EnergyConservation

Every bus full of passen-gers at rush hour removes40 cars from traffic; everyfull rail car removes 75-125cars from traffic; everyvan full of passengers re-moves 13 from traffic.

One high-occupancy vehi-cle lane carries the sameamount of people as threeregular highway lanes.

Major highways can cost$100-120 million per mile;busways can be built for$4-12 million per mile;light rail for $10-20 mil-lion per mile and heavyrail for costs comparableor lower than major high-ways.

A savings of ten to 15 gal-lons of gasoline is realizedevery time 40 single-pas-senger-car drivers take a10-mile trip to work on thebus.

30-40 million gallons ofgasoline would be savedeach day if average com-muter - vehicle - occupan-cies were increased from1.1 passengers per vehicleto 2.1 passengers per ve-hicle.

AirQuality

Safety

EconomicGrowth

When one commuter leavesthe car behind and usestransit to travel to andfrom work for one year,the health of millions ofAmericans can be im-proved through the re-moval of nine pounds ofhydrocarbons, 63 poundsof carbon monoxide, fivepounds of nitrogen oxidesand one pound of particu-lates, annually.

The highway death toll—46,644 in 1988—can be re-duced, along with 1.8 mil-lion annual auto-relatedinjuries.

Every $10 million in tran-sit capital investment sup-ports 770 jobs; every $10million in transit operat-ing investment supports960 jobs.

Every $10 million in tran-sit capital investment pro-duces $33 million in busi-ness revenues.

Every $10 million in tran-sit operating investmentproduces $30 million inbusiness revenues.

THE FUTUREMISSION AND ROLE

pFPUBLICTRANSPpRTATlONThe mission of public transportation in the years

ahead must parallel closely new national goalsand policy directions. Public transportation mustserve to enhance mobility and, in the process con-tribute in a major way to the solution of problemsthat threaten our economy and quality Of Hfe #

In pursuing this mission, transit agencies andprofessionals will be faced with new and difficultchallenges that will require often significant adap-tations. The most important adaptations involvebroadening the definition of public transit, diver-sifying services, and shouldering a clear responsi-bility to manage mobility.

"Viewed from a state's perspective, it isunacceptable that the federal governmentshould, on one hand, insist upon strin-gent clean air standards for urban andsuburban areas while, on the other hand,reduce its commitment to mass transit/'—Robert A. /nnocenzi, Acting Commis-sioner/New Jersey Department ofTransportation

"Massive highway construction will notease traffic congestion — but only spreadsprawl and congestion to new areas, andincrease time lost in congestion, fuelconsumption, and smog."—Dr. John Holtzclaw, Sierra Club

Diversification of ServicesTo promote enhanced mobility through increased tran-

sit use, the conventional definition of transit must bebroadened to include a wider range of services tailoredto particular markets and drawing on the full range ofavailable resources. High-occupancy, shared-ride ser-vices of all types must be incorporated into our con-cept of public transportation and encouraged, coor-dinated, and supported through a new federal program.

Managing Mobility:Transit as a Catalyst

Transit agencies and professionals also must actaggressively as catalysts in the community and play abroader role as managers of mobility. This responsibil-ity requires actions beyond the direct operation andmanagement of on-street services. Coordinating, advis-ing, and promoting better management of the supplyof and the demand for transportation services are allpart of this larger responsibility, including active par-ticipation in economic development and land usedecisions.

Expanding and diversifying public transit and for-malizing the responsibility for managing mobility mustbe basic strategies for the industry and national policyin the years ahead.

Measuring Success:A Two-Tiered Approach

Improved quality of service, increased performanceand greater efficiency remain essential in the provisionof transit services, and in the operation of our entiretransportation system. The success and value of publictransit, however, must be measured in broader termsthrough a new, two-tiered approach. At the nationallevel, the focus should be directly on how well ourtransportation investments support achievement of majornational goals. At the local level, direct attention mustbe paid to how those investments serve the unique andvaried circumstances, goals, and priorities of the localcommunities and region. New national policies andprograms must emphasize a more strategic view of whatmust be accomplished both nationally and locally, andprovide a framework for measuring progress that isconsistent with these broader views.

TEN PRINCIPLES TO GUIDE NATIONALAs an initial step in reformulating national trans-

portation policy and recrafting federal transporta-tion programs, consensus must be reached on basicprinciples. To pursue the policy directions high-

lighted on page 3, the following 10 principlesshould be used to guide reformulation of thenation's surface transportation programs.

1. The federal surface transportation programshould be restructured substantially in order toaddress more intelligently the mobility needs of thenation and ensure progress in meeting other nationalgoals.

Rationale: Current highway and transit pro-grams do not have the necessary responsive-ness nor the flexibility to address current andemerging needs and problems; substantialrestructuring makes sense only if done incombination with the addition of significantlyincreased federal resources.

2 . The concept of transit should be broadened toencompass and promote increased availability anduse of transit and other high-occupancy, shared-ride services in order to better serve diverse travelneeds, and to reduce growth in vehicle-miles of travelwhile accommodating increased passenger-miles oftravel.

Rationale: Federal goals must be stated clearly.Doing so invites closer linkage between mobilitygoals and broader national goals, it broadensthe transit constituency, promotes investmentin new mobility strategies and a broader rangeof services, and promotes relaxation of exist-ing program restrictions. Each step, in turn,increases the attention paid to serving peoplerather than vehicles.

3 . Existing regional decision-making authority overthe use of federal transportation funds should beenhanced and strengthened.

Rationale: The local ability to assess needs,set priorities, and deploy resources in a regionalcontext must be strengthened to better servetransportation and other major national andregional goals.

4 . Greater flexibility should be allowed in the useof federal funds and a stronger multi-modal approachto planning, funding, and decision-making must beestablished.

Rationale: Better integration of transportationdecisions, planning, and funding is necessaryto make appropriate trade-offs between multi-ple goals and objectives on the local andregional level, to make more cost effective useof resources, and to reduce federal micro-management of resource decisions and admin-istrative actions that restrict our ability torespond to emerging needs and problems.

)TRANSPORTATION POLICY AND PROGRAMS5. The reliability and predictability of federal fund-ing must be improved through increased relianceon formula allocation, increased reliance on dedi-cated funding at the federal level, and expanded useof multi-year federal funding commitments.

Rationale: Recipients of federal funds must beable to project and depend on stable sources ofsupport in order to design and carry out multi-year projects and programs; annual uncertaintyand delays in establishing the level of federalsupport for transit and highways must beeliminated.

6. The costs associated with mandated federal actionsand the substantial contribution of public transpor-tation to the achievement of other major nationalgoals provides justification for continuing federalsupport from all sources.

Rationale: The costs of measures required byfederal law or policy are substantial and increas-ing; all sources of support for transit invest-ment should be brought to bear in the yearsahead; the linkage of mobility goals to otherfederal goals is made stronger by the commit-ment of both dedicated and general funds tosupport mandated actions.

7. Substantial additional federal funding should beprovided for public transportation to fully carryout the goal of significantly increasing the provisionand use of high-occupancy, shared-ride services.

Rationale: Federal transit funding has beenreduced 50% in the last eight years, in realterms; all indications are that historic disin-vestment in transportation, the current condi-tion of facilities, and future travel demandsrequire a doubling of the total investment; theincrease should be borne by all funding partners.

8 . An immediate gasoline tax/motor fuels taxincrease should be enacted concurrent with reauthor-ization of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act,and federal motor fuel taxes should be made per-manent to support needed transit and highway invest-ment; full revenues from the tax should be committedannually.

Rationale: Needs are immediate; the traditionalsource of transportation funding should con-tinue to be the basic resource for increasedinvestment; aggressive claims will be made byother interests on gasoline tax increases; and,action on federal revenue increases, includingthe gasoline tax likely will take place soonerrather than later.

9. The federal tax code should be revised to pro-mote private and non-federal investment in transit,and to eliminate the taxation of employer-transitsubsidies and other disincentives to transit use.

Rationale: Other federal policies should stronglysupport direct investment in and use of publictransportation, rather than frustrate achievementof the goals that federal funding is intended tomeet.

10. Federal transportation policies and programsshould require closer integration of transportationinvestments and land use decisions in order to pro-vide an environment that is conducive to and encour-ages increased provision and use of high-occupancy,shared-ride services; other federal policies affectingtransportation demand and investment should incor-porate this same objective.

Rationale: Unless development practices andpolicies at the local level are consistent andsupportive with basic federal transportationgoals, the effectiveness of federal investmentwill be diminished greatly along with the oppor-tunity to advance other national goals. Federalattention to how land uses and developmentare arrayed across the landscape is necessaryto reinforce these linkages.

The Metropolitan ProgramA new Metropolitan Transportation Program at the

federal level is proposed to support transit and highwayinvestments in the nation's urbanized areas of greaterthan 50,000 population. The Metropolitan Program iscomposed of four elements:

1. A federal source of formula funds for majorexpansion of either transit or highway capac-ity, giving local officials the flexibility todecide what mix of projects and investmentsbest suit the local need to expand capacity;

2. A formula program to support continuingreinvestment in existing public transit sys-tems and services;

3. A formula program to support continuingreinvestment in our highway system; and

4. A federal discretionary program targetingfederal investment to major capital projects,either transit or highways.

A .specific metropolitan focus has become essentialand the federal-local relationship in meeting emergingneeds must be strengthened. At the metropolitan levelthe complex interrelated issues of central city and urban-suburban development and travel can be attacked com-prehensively, and the full spectrum of regional economic,social, and environmental relationships can be broughtmost effectively into balance. Also, at the metropoli-tan level we have the greatest breadth of data and infor-mation with which to shape our strategies and gaugeour success.

DISCRETIONARY PROGRAM

MAJOR CAPACITYEXPANSION

TRANSIT | HIGHWAYREINVESTMENT i REINVESTMENT

ELEMENTS OF ANEW NATIONAL

SURFACETRANSPORTATION

PROGRAMA new national surface transportation program

to support transit and highway investment in thedecades ahead must deliver resources more effec-tively and directly to both our metropolitan andrural regions. Outlined at right and on the follow-ing three pages are specific program proposalsthat can achieve this objective.

"Dollars put into transit infrastructurecreate growth and wealth. On the otherhand, failure to invest will lead to non-competitiveness at home and in worldmarkets."—Roger Tauss, TransportWorkers Union, Philadelphia

"Mobility and productivity are synon-ymous."— John A. Miller, Chairman andCEO, Provident Mutual Life InsuranceCompany, Philadelphia

Targeting Modal Reinvestment—The federal pro-gram must provide resources specifically targeted forcritical maintenance and reinvestment. In doing so, itis appropriate to continue to allocate funds directly bymode.

Providing separate transit and highway reinvestmentfunding recognizes that one of the most profound prob-lems facing our nation's transportation system is thedegree of deterioration that has been allowed to takeplace. Very simply, we are failing to adequately main-tain our current systems and facilities. The backlog ofinvestment requirements for maintenance and upkeepis both staggering and mounting.

As importantly, both transit and highway reinvest-ment needs are easily measured, have high public visi-bility, and have far-reaching consequences if notaggressively addressed.

The proposed Metropolitan Program, therefore,includes separate program elements to provide federalfunds specifically for both transit and highwayreinvestment.

The major features of each of the four major com-ponents of the metropolitan program are described inthe accompanying figures.

LIMITED TRANSFERABILITYFOR CAPACITY EXPANSION

TRANSITREINVESTMENT

OPERATINGASSISTANCE

LIMITEDTRANSFERABILITYFOR HIGHWAYREINVESTMENT

• DEFINE TRANSIT MAINTENANCE AND REINVEST-MENT TO INCLUDE:— Capital investment needed to replace and rehabilitate current

equipment and facilities— Capital investment necessary to retain current market

share— Transit operating support

• DELIVER FEDERAL FUNDS FOR TRANSIT MAINTE-NANCE AND REINVESTMENT TO CURRENT "DESIG-NATED RECIPIENTS"

• USE OF EXISTING ALLOCATION FORMULA (populationand service factors)

• ALLOWANCE FOR LIMITED TRANSFERABILITY OFFUNDS FOR SELECTED HIGHWAY REINVESTMENTPROJECTS AND CAPACITY EXPANSION

• ELIMINATE CAPITAL/OPERATING DISTINCTIONSMALL- AND MEDIUM-SIZE URBANIZED AREAS

FOR

TRANSFERABILITYFOR TRANSITREINVESTMENT

TRANSFERABILITY FORCAPACITY EXPANSION

HIGHWAYREINVESTMENT

LIMITED USEFOR OFF-SYSTEM

INVESTMENT

OPERATING EFFICIENCYIMPROVEMENTS

BRIDGE MAINTENANCE

• DEFINE HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE AND REINVEST-MENT TO INCLUDE:— All investments on a designated metropolitan system,

including Interstate highways, short of added lanes— Investment to improve operating efficiency, and bridge

maintenance on a metropolitan system

• DELIVER FEDERAL FUNDS FOR HIGHWAY MAINTE-NANCE AND REINVESTMENT TO STATES WITH DIRECTPASS-THROUGH TO METROPOLITAN AREAS

• USE EXISTING FEDERAL AID URBAN SYSTEM FORMULA

• METROPOLITAN RECIPIENT TO BE AGENCY RESPON-SIBLE FOR CAPITAL PROGRAMMING

• ALLOW TRANSFERABILITY FOR:— Limited transit-related improvements— Limited priority highway improvements off the designated

system

Expanding Capacity—In addition to funds providedspecifically for reinvestment, the proposed Metropoli-tan Program includes a separate source of funds todirectly support major capacity expansion on metro-politan systems. Unlike metropolitan funds providedfor reinvestment, federal funds for capacity expansionwould be available to the metropolitan area as a sharedor pooled resource, for use without regard to mode.

The single, multi-modal source of funds for majorcapacity expansion is intended to encourage strongerintegration of transit and highway planning, to pro-mote more rational trade-offs between various types ofinvestments., and to encourage more highly integratedmulti-modal project design.

Long-deferred reinvestment needs cannot be pur-sued to the exclusion of efforts to expand both transitand highway capacity. Travel demands already areoverwhelming our systems and will continue to increasein the years ahead. Additional passenger-carryingcapacity will be essential to maintain a mobile Americainto the next century and beyond.

THE MAJOR CAPACITY EXPANSION ANDDISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS

DISCRETIONARY PROGRAM

MAJOR CAPACITY EXPANSION(SINGLE, SHARED RESOURCE

FOR HIGHWAY/TRANSIT)

LIMITEDTRANSFERABILITYFOR TRANSITREINVESTMENT

LIMITEDTRANSFERABILITYFOR HIGHWAYREINVESTMENT

• COMBINED FEDERAL RESOURCE; NO DISTINCTIONREGARDING MODES; ALLOW TRANSIT/HIGHWAY MIXOF CAPACITY EXPANSION INVESTMENTS/PROJECTSTO BE DETERMINED LOCALLY

• DEFINE MAJOR CAPACITY EXPANSION TO INCLUDE:— Transit new starts and extensions (rail, transitway, HOV, etc.)— Highway extension and expansion (i.e. added lanes, new

facilities on new rights-of-way)

• FORMULA DISTRIBUTION BASED ON:— Need: Travel demand growth, using annual data in an

easily auditable form,e.g. motor vehicle fuel sales

federal gasoline tax revenuesattributable motor vehicle registrations,

etc.

— Transit Proportion, amount or increase in travelUse: accommodated on transit and other forms of

high-occupancy, shared-ride services, usingannual data in an easily auditable form,e.g. ridership

farebox revenue/base fareincrease in average vehicle occupancy,

etc.

— Weight the transit use factor more heavily as the preferredoutcome to be rewarded/encouraged

• FEDERAL DISCRETIONARY RESOURCE— Devoted to projects that serve directly to improve or address

issues of national significance, e.g. congestion, safety, airquality, economic development, infrastructure, energy, etc.

Federal Discretionary Investment—The proposedMetropolitan Program is designed to function predom-inantly through a formula allocation of federal fundsdrawn from motor fuel and related federal user fees.For a variety of reasons, however, it will remain impor-tant to maintain a discretionary program at the federallevel.

Federal discretionary funds should be available tosupport either reinvestment or capacity expansion pro-jects. Federal discretionary funds should be directed toprojects that cannot be accomplished with formula fund-ing alone and which provide demonstrable, positiveimpacts in the solution of problems declared to be ofnational significance. Obvious examples include pro-jects that reduce vehicle-miles of travel, provide con-gestion relief, reduce mobile source emissions, relievesafety hazards, directly spur economic development,expand service to the elderly, those with disabilities,or disadvantaged persons, or attract added sources ofnon-federal funds.

10

Increased Flexibility—One of the principle featuresof the Metropolitan Program is the greatly increasedflexibility that is provided in the use of federal trans-portation funds. The added flexibility occurs at severallevels within the program.

By eliminating most current federal categorical pro-grams, existing constraints on the use of federal fundsare relaxed considerably, creating a more responsiveand effective federal program. In addition, the provi-sion of a single, multi-modal source of funds for majorcapacity expansion greatly increases the variations inhow federal funds can be deployed within the metro-politan region.

Increased flexibility also is provided by allowing adegree of transferability between funds specifically dedi-cated for reinvestment and funds provided for capacityexpansion. In addition, a significant degree of flexibil-ity is provided in the use of funds within each of themajor program elements.

Finally, a continued federal discretionary programprovides the flexibility needed to carry out major capi-tal projects beyond the scope of formula programs.

A Rural Public TransportationProgram

The transportation needs of residents of small urbanand rural areas across the country are as immediate andas compelling as those that confront the residents ofour largest metropolitan areas.

While significant restructuring of the current federaltransit program serving small urban and rural areasbelow 50,000 population may be necessary, there aresome changes in federal policy that are evident todaythat will be essential in making the rural transit pro-gram more effective, and would allow for more efficientuse of federal funds.

The most important change is an increase in thelevel of federal support. The federal small urban andrural transit assistance program could easily benefitfrom at least a doubling of federal investment.

In addition to increased direct federal investment,one of the most important actions that can be taken toincrease the effectiveness of available funds is to stream-line and coordinate the use of federal transportationfunds with the massive amounts being spent throughfederal (and state and local) human services programsfor transportation of specific client groups.

Updating national policy and programs directed atthe mobility needs of small urban and rural residentsmust go hand-in-hand with enactment of a new metro-politan transportation program.

"We're coming up against the physicallimits" .. "The goal has got to be shiftedaway from moving vehicles to movingpeople."—Ross Sandier, NYC Transpor-tation Commissioner—New York Times,July 17, 1988

"If we allow urban and suburban con-gestion to squeeze the life out ofAmerica's cities, we cannot expect tohave a healthy and internationallycompetitive economy."—Bruce T.McDowell, Transportation Institutions inthe Year 2020

"The preservation of our existing networkof commuter rail services is essential toour economic future. We must have astable funding base for capital needs andoperations."—Charles Seymour,Chairman, Jackson-Cross Company,Real Estate Development, Philadelphia

"It is vital that the federal governmentcontinue its partnership with local, state,and private entities to ensure the mobilityof our nation."—Jim Sims, Los AngelesCounty Transportation Commission

FEDERAL INVESTMENT: THEMETROPOLITAN PROGRAM

Transit 2000 estimates confirm the need to increasecombined federal investment in transit and highwaysby 100% or more. Today U.S. Department of Trans-portation spending includes $16.7 billion annually,$3.2 billion for transit and $13.5 billion for highways.The recommended Metropolitan Program calls for atotal federal transportation investment of not less than$25 billion per year and as much as $34 billion, basedon combined estimates of transit and highway needs.

Transit InvestmentRequirements

As part of the Metropolitan Program, federal invest-ment for public transportation should be increased to atleast $11 billion annually, including roughly $5.7 bil-lion for essential reinvestment and $5.2 billion for capac-ity expansion.

This estimate has been derived from Well-definedreinvestment requirements that reflect the mountingbacklog of repair, replacement, and rehabilitation needsof our public transit systems.

Added to the essential reinvestment needs are thecosts of expanding transit capacity to meet the goal ofsubstantially increasing the use of transit and otherforms of high-occupancy, shared-ride services. Capac-ity expansion needs have been estimated from analysesthat generally target a level of transit use that is doubleor triple the current level. Increases of this order ofmagnitude or greater represent a reasonable goal forthe nation and would, for instance, reflect a commit-ment to achieve per capita transit use at levels equal tothose currently experienced in Canada.

The basic assumptions used in arriving at the transitinvestment requirements are conservative. They reflect:— a commitment to reduce the current backlog of tran-

sit reinvestment requirements;— a parallel commitment to reinvest adequately in our

transit systems and facilities in the future to supporta regular cycle of rehabilitation and replacement;

— pursuit of future per capita transit ridership goalsthat, at a minimum, double current levels;

— substantial increases in the proportion of transit tripson non-traditional, shared-ride types of services;and

— cost factors that reflect the current median costs ofvarious service options.

o

TRANSPORTATIONINVESTMENT

REQUIREMENTSThe most important tool in addressing the goals and

objectives of a new federal transportation program isthe level of direct investment made in our systems andservices—both transit and highways.

National policy must be focused on restoring thepriority of transportation investment, nationwide. Todo so, the federal government must re-establish itsleadership role in providing increased investment infuture years. '

Today there is strong concensus and justification forthe proposition that overall transportation investmentshould be increased substantially and that the shareof the investment from federal sources should not bereduced from levels reflected in current federal policy.

"Our federal tax system promotes theuse of the single-occupant vehicle as thebest way to get to work. We are sendinga mixed signal to commuters. The single-occupant vehicle is no longer the modeof choice."—Rep. Roger Roy, Chairman,Transportation Committee, State Houseof Representatives, Dover, Delaware

"More, not less public money needs tobe spent at the federal, state, and locallevels for the improvement, maintenance,and expansion of mass transit... Masstransit is something positive governmentcan do to protect air quality, conserveenergy, promote desirable land usepatterns, and provide access to jobs andconvenient, safe travel. It's hard to thinkof a government spending programwhere so much bang can be gotten forthe buck."—Joanne R. Denworth,Executive Director, Pennsylvania Envi-ronmental Council, Inc., Philadelphia

A more ambitious set of ridership goals and costestimates adjusted for future inflation would require alevel of federal investment in transit signficiantly abovethe $11 billion annual figure.

Even without a national commitment to increasedtransit ridership, however, the federal transit programmust be increased from $3.2 billion to a range of $6billion to $8 billion per year. This minimum level offederal transit investment is necessary to meet the rein-vestment requirements of existing systems and services,to continue major new projects that already are in theadvanced stages of planning and development, and tofulfill new federal requirements and mandates in a hostof areas. The $6 billion to $8 billion annual level ofinvestment is necessary to restore recent declines in thepurchasing power of federal assistance as a result ofinflation and program reductions since 1981. In 1981,federal transit assistance totaled $4.6 billion. Simplyadjusting that level of support to 1989 dollars wouldrequire a minimum federal program of $6.5 billionannually to meet a minimum combination of reinvest-ment and capacity expansion needs.

Highway InvestmentRequirements

Depending on the assumptions used, figures com-piled by the American Association of State Highwayand Transportation Officials (AASHTO) indicate a needfor federal highway reinvestment that ranges from over$8 billion annually to nearly $13 billion. Federal sup-port for highway capacity expansion could require anadditional $10 billion per year if scenarios for 'fullyimproved service' on the nation's highways are to bepursued.

FEDERAL INVESTMENT: THERURAL TRANSIT PROGRAMAs indicated earlier, the need for public transporta-

tion services in our nation's small urban and rural areasfar exceeds current resources. Federal assistance directlyto rural public transit should be at least double the $70million to $80 million now provided annually. In addi-tion, the substantial amounts of transportation spend-ing from federal human services programs should becombined more effectively with direct investment bythe federal Department of Transportation.

The scope of our transportation needs is enormous.The consequences for the nation of not acting aggres-sively to meet them is increasingly serious. As a result,the federal government must be called on once again totake the lead role, not only in setting goals and estab-lishing new policy direction, but in providing the nec-essary financial resources to spur overall transportationinvestment.

NON-FEDERAL FINANCEWhile increased direct federal transportation invest-

ment must be the centerpiece of a new national policy,overall transportation investment has been, and mustremain, a partnership among federal, state, and localgovernments, the private sector, users, and others thatbenefit from enhanced mobility and high quality sys-tems and services.

Direct federal investment in transit and highwaysmust serve two purposes. First, it must directly under-write major projects and improvements. As importantly,however, federal investment must serve as a catalyst toattract stable and reliable financial commitiilents fromeach of the other partners. The goal of bringing addednon-federal resources to transportation should be a prom-inent part of new national policies and programs.

The most effective way to serve this goal is to incor-porate into federal policy and programs a comprehen-sive series of fair and equitable incentives to attractgreater state and local funding, increased financingfrom private sources, and increased financial partici-pation by users and beneficiaries. As part of this effort,consideration should be given to new pricing mecha-nisms that recover more of the costs of services andfacilities, particularly for automobile and highway use,and federal allocation mechanisms that reward increasedinvestment without placing at a disadvantage commu-nities that may be struggling economically.

In addition to the provision of more effective financ-ing incentives, an effort must be made to remove thecurrent disincentives to increased transportation invest-ment that exist in federal policy. Transit agencies, forinstance, must be allowed, encouraged, and rewardedfor seeking increased revenues from non-traditionalsources, including new types of services, real estateand development activities, etc.

Our future transportation needs—both transit andhighways—require a comprehensive financial strategyguided and underwritten by the federal government.

13

Federal Tax ProvisionsCurrent federal tax provisions limit overall invest-

ment in and the effectiveness of transportation facili-ties, particularly public transportation services. A hostof federal tax provisions discourage private investmentin transportation facilities, greatly restrict the financ-ing powers and options available to state and localgovernments, and raise the cost of state and local bor-rowing for infrastructure investment.

Current tax provisions governing state and local bond-ing ceilings, private participation limitations, arbitragerestrictions, sale/leaseback transactions, etc. should bereviewed carefully and made consistent with newnational transportation goals and policies.

In addition, fringe benefit provisions of the federaltax code provide a significant economic incentive toautomobile users and a disincentive to increased transituse. Current tax law allows employer-subsidized freeparking to go totally untaxed while those who receiveemployer-subsidized transit passes are taxed fully, oncethe value of monthly employer support exceeds $15dollars. This imbalance must be remedied.

As part of the effort to rewrite federal transportationprograms and policies, federal tax law must be rewrit-ten to support rather than undermine greater invest-ment and use of public transportation.

Land Use and DevelopmentCoordination

Land development patterns dictate the nature of ourtravel demands. To enhance mobility and freedom ofmovement, greater attention, therefore, must be paid tohow land uses and development are arrayed across thelandscape. It is imperative that we aggressively pro-mote and provide incentives for development that canbe served more easily and effectively by public trans-portation. Concentrating development, more mixed-use development, supportive parking requirements,policies, and pricing, and attention to a host of criticalsite and building design features are all required.

Better coordination of transportation and private devel-opment through local planning and development con-trols presents enormous opportunities to manage traveldemand, reduce public investment requirements, sharecosts, and achieve greater use and efficiency from allour transportation facilities and services.

Across the country there are a growing number ofexamples of how this is being done. New federal trans-portation programs should promote these efforts andensure that both transit and highway investments arepremised on broad-based strategic plans for the regionand on the existence and implementation of effectiveland use plans and development controls.

ACTIONS ANDPOLICIES TO

SUPPORT NATIONALGOALS ANDINCREASED

TRANSPORTATIONINVESTMENT

It is increasingly important to ensure that bur trans-portation investments are supported strongly by otherpublic policies. Today unfortunately, a number of pub-lic policies, including federal tax provisions, nationalenergy policy, and local land use and developmentcontrols severely undermine the effectiveness of ourtransportation investments. Those policies should beeliminated and incentives to increase the effectivenessof our transportation investments should be adopted.

"Industry concurs with the finding thatcalls for an increase in direct investmentin transportation from all sources."—Richard B. Griffin Jr., director ofgovernment relations, General SignalCorporation

"Rather than highway funding sanctions,(Clean Air Act) non-attainment areasshould be eligible for and granted fundingto be utilized for systems that wouldreduce vehicle miles traveled, namelymass transit."—SaraR. Nichols, CleanAir Council of the Delaware Valley,Philadelphia

National Energy PolicyAmong the most significant factors affecting our

choice of transportation options is the cost of variousmodes of travel, both to the rider and to the communityas a whole. Today, as an expression of unstated nationalpolicy, we price gasoline at levels far below those thatexist in other countries around the world. We in essencesubsidize and, therefore, directly encourage low-occupancy automobile use.

At the same time that we are providing an economicincentive for increased low-occupany automobile use,we fail to recover the full cost of automobile use oraccount fully for the consequences of reliance on per-sonal vehicle use. We have held the price of energyartificially low and have grossly underestimated thecosts that must be borne.

National transportation and energy policy must beclosely coordinated and brought into synch with respectto these two crucial points before the marketplace willpromote the type of activity and behavior that is requiredto achieve our mobility goals as well as other majornational goals linked to transportation.

Human Resources, Technologyand Research and Development

Human resource issues, technological change, andour approach to basic research and development allwill have substantial impacts on transportation demands,travel behavior, and the success of strategies we selectto meet future transportation needs.

Human Resources.—Public transit will continue tobe dominated by its human resource and human ser-vice character. Two dimensions are of critical concernwith respect to national policy: the way in which demo-graphics will influence travel demand, and how tran-sit's work force can be shaped to best meet thosedemands.

Socio-economic and demographic trends indicate aserious, across-the-board labor force shortage in futureyears. The problem is compounded by the increasingseparation of willing workers from the job opportuni-ties. Labor force mobility will become an increasinglyimportant issue throughout the entire country underthese conditions. As a consequence, greater attentionmust be paid to: land use and transportation strategiesthat bring jobs and housing locations into better bal-ance; and make expanded transportation options avail-able to the work force.

Because of the labor-intensive nature of public trans-portation, the quality of transit services is dependentdirectly on the skills that are brought to bear by bothlabor and management, the price paid for those skillsin a highly competitive environment, and the degree towhich those skills are used to their greatest potential.

A variety of new recruitment, education, and retrain-ing strategies as well as benefit and compensation pro-grams may need to be tailored to an increasinglyheterogeneous work force that will be more multi-lingualand will be seeking a new balance between household,family, and job-related responsibilities.

National transportation policy and the transit indus-try must value and serve this increasing diversity toensure the successful pursuit of the transit mission.

Technology. —New technologies also will affect publictransportation in two ways: by influencing changes intravel and communications patterns; and, by effectingthe nature of transit equipment and the skills necessaryto put it to its most effective and efficient use.

A central feature of national concern is the strengthof the domestic transit supply industry. The; responsi-bility of transit managers is to get greatest value andreliability for their investment. This basic requirementmust be balanced against both the need to maintainstrong, competitive domestic suppliers, and the needto reduce the nation's mounting trade deficit.

Transportation policy must be integrated with nationaland international economic policy, and the federal gov-ernment should take a more active role in joint effortsto support and promote the domestic transit supplyindustry here and abroad.

Research and Development.—Common to boththe human resources and technology issues is the chronicunderinvestment in research and development in thetransportation field, generally, and in public transpor-tation specifically. One of the most effective means toreinforce a strong market for goods and services is toensure the existence of a strategically-targeted researchand development program.

Today, there is limited incentive, however, for domes-tic suppliers or for potential workers to commit them-selves to participate in the growth and evolution of thenation's transit industry. National policy must, througha greatly expanded emphasis on research and develop-ment, help provide the incentives and bolster the marketfor innovative services, management, and technologies.

15

SUMMARYWe have reached a point as a nation where the

host of policies that guide and impact future trans-portation investment must be reformulated. Theproposals made by the Transit 2000 Task Forcerepresent a fundamentally new and broad-basedapproach to ensure that future transportation invest-

ment more effectively serves national and localgoals. Substantial progress in crafting a new setof policies and programs consistent with the direc-tions proposed by the Task Force will help ensurethe vitality of our economy and the quality of lifein our communities in the decades ahead.

Transit 2000 Task ForceMr. Robert R. KileyChairmanMetropolitan Transportation

Authority347 Madison AvenueNew York, NY 10017-3706FAX (212) 878-3706(212) 878-7000

Mr. Joseph AlexanderBoard MemberWashington Metropolitan Area

Transportation Authority6107 Craft RoadAlexandria, VA 22310(703) 971-6262

Mr. Charles AndersonExecutive DirectorDallas Area Rapid Transit601 PacificDallas, TX 75202(214) 748-3278

Mr. Michael P. BoltonExecutive DirectorAnn Arbor Transportation Authority2700 South Industrial HighwayAnn Arbor, MI 48104FAX (313) 973-6338(313) 973-6500

Mr. John A. BonsallGeneral ManagerOttawa-Carleton Regional Transit

Commission1500 Saint Laurent BoulevardOttawa, OntarioCanada K1G 0Z8(613) 741-6440

Mr. Henry C. ChurchGeneral ManagerGreater Richmond Transit Authority101 South Davis AvenueP.O. Box 27323Richmond, VA 23261-7323

Mr. James E. CowenGeneral Manager•Tri-County Metropolitan

Transportation District of Oregon4012 Southeast 17th AvenuePortland, OR 97202-3993FAX (503) 239-6451(503) 238-4915

Mr. Lawrence DahmsExecutive DirectorMetropolitan Transportation

Commission101 Eighth StreetOakland, CA 94607FAX (415) 464-7848(415) 464-7700

Mr. Sidney DanoffBoard MemberRegional Transportation AuthorityOne North Dearbome StreetSuite 1100Chicago, IL 60602(312) 917-0700

Mr. Richard F. DavisGeneral ManagerKansas City Area Transportation

Authority1320 East 17th StreetKansas City, MO 64108(816) 346-0200

Mr. Mortimer L. DowneyExecutive Director & Chief

Financial OfficerMetropolitan Transportation

Authority347 Madison AvenueNew York, NY 10017-3706FAX (212) 878-7031(212) 878-7174

Mr. Gerard L. Drake, P.E.Senior Vice PresidentWilbur Smith Associates282 Second Street, 2nd FloorSan Francisco, CA 94105(415) 896-0670

John A. DyerConsultantDavid R. Miller Assoociates10727 White Oak AvenueSuite #122Granada Hills, CA 91344(818)888-1138

Mr. Michael G. FerreriSenior Vice PresidentBooz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc.400 Market StreetSuite 900Philadelphia, PA 19106

Mr. Warren H. FrankBoardMemberandExecutiveDirectorCentral New York Regional

Transportation AuthorityOne Centra Center200 Cortland AvenueDrawer 820Syracuse, NY 13205-0820(315)471-2100

Mr. S. Thomas GaglianoExecutive DirectorNew Jersey Transit CorporationMcCarter Highway & Market StreetP.O. Box 10009Newark, NJ 07101(201) 643-7471

Mr. Louis J. GambacciniChief Operating Officer/General

ManagerSoutheastern Pennsylvania

Transportation Authority714 Market StreetThe Sovereign BuildingPhiladelphia, PA 19106(215) 574-7300FAX (215) 574-7328

Ms. Miriam L. GholikelyBoard MemberSan Mateo County Transit District945 California DriveBurlingame, CA 94010-3696(415) 872-6748

Mr. Robert L. GrahamPresidentGraham Sales Corporation19800 Nordhoff PlaceChatsworth, CA 91361(818) 998-2500

Mr. Delon Hampton, P.E.PresidentDelon Hampton & Associates111 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.Suite 400Washington, DC 20001(202) 898-1999

Mr. Ronald J. HartmanGeneral Manager/AdministrationMass Transit Administration of

Maryland300 West Lexington StreetBaltimore, MD 21201-3415

Mr. Lawrence W. JacksonPresidentLong Beach Transit1300 Gardenia AvenueP.O. Box 731Long Beach, CA 90801(213) 426-4148

Mr. Harold C. JenkinsGeneral ManagerCambria County Transit Authority726 Central AvenueJohnstown, PA 15902-2996(814)535-5526

Mr. Richard R. KellyVice President and General ManagerPort Authority Trans-Hudson

CorporationOne World Trade CenterSuite 62WNew York, NY 10048

Mr. Alan F. KiepperChief General ManagerMetropolitan Transit Authority of

Harris County500 JeffersonP.O. Box 61429Houston, TX 79708-1429(713)739-4000FAX (713) 739-4925

Mr. Allan F. LeachChief General ManagerToronto Transit Commission1900 Yonge StreetToronto, OntarioCanada M4S 1Z2(416)393-4000

Mr. James A. MachesneyVice President and General ManagerBus Products DivisionVapor Corporation6420 West Howard StreetChicago, IL 60648-3394(312) 967-8300

Mrs. RebaMaloneBoard MemberVIA Metropolitan Transit306 Golden CrownSan Antonio, TX 78223(512)333-0513

Mr. William W. MillarExecutive DirectorPort Authority of Allegheny County2235 Beaver AvenuePittsburgh, PA 15233(412)237-7311FAX (412) 237-7101

Mr. Ernie A. Miller3320 Symphony LaneClinton, OH 44216(216) 825-7421

Mr. Larry E. MillerProject ManagerGannett Fleming West, Inc.Seattle, WA

Mr. Larry MillerPresidentAmerican Seating Company901 Broadway, N.W.Grand Rapids, MI 49504

Mr. James MillsChairmanSan Diego Metropolitan Transit

Development Board620 C Street, Suite 400San Diego, CA 92101-5368(619) 231-1466

Mr. James F. O'LearyPresidentAlternate Concepts, Inc.99 Summer Street14th FloorBoston, MA 02110(617) 951-0509FAX (617) 951-0513

Mr. James L. O'SullivanGeneral ManagerAC Transit1600 Franklin StreetOakland, CA 94612(415) 891-4777

Mr. Mark ObertVice ChairmanThe Flxible Corporation2015 WashtenawAnn Arbor, MI 48104(313) 994-8000FAX (313) 662-3600

Mr. Robert E. Paaswell167 W. GoetheChicago, IL 60610(312) 266-7561

Mr. Neil PetersonExecutive DirectorLos Angeles County Transportation

Commission403 West Eighth Street, Suite 500Los Angeles, CA 90014-3096(213) 626-0370

Mr. Phil RingoMiami Valley Research Park1985 Founders DriveDayton, OH 45420(513) 259-6978

Mr. Claude Robinson7462 Treeline Drive, SEGrand Rapids, MI 49506FAX (616) 456-0491(616) 942-6546

American Public Transit Association1201 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20005

Mr. Leonard RonisAssociate ConsultantParsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade &

Douglas24617 Duffield RoadBeachwood, OH 44122FAX (216) 765-8839Capitol Creation Co.(216) 831-0222

Mr. Alfred H. SavageExecutive DirectorNiagara Frontier Transportation

Authority181 Ellicott StreetP.O. Box 5008Buffalo, NY 14205FAX (716) 855-7657(716)855-7300

Mr. Daniel T. ScannellFirst Vice ChairmanMetropolitanTransportationAuthority347 Madison AvenueNew York, NY 10017-3706

Mr. Richard J. SimonettaGeneral ManagerCentral Ohio Transit Authority1600 McKinley AvenueColumbus, OH 43222(614) 275-5800

Mr. Roger SnoblePresident and General ManagerSan Diego Transit CorporationP.O. Box 2511San Diego, CA 9112-2511

Mr. Ronald J. ToberGeneral ManagerGreater Cleveland Regional

Transit Authority615 Superior Avenue, NWCleveland OH 44113(216) 566-5100FAX (216) 781-0144

Mrs. Carmen TurnerGeneral ManagerWashington Metropolitan Area

Transit Authority600 Fifth Street, NWWashington, DC 20001(202) 962-1000

Mr. David L. TumeyPresidentLuminator1200 East Piano ParkwayPiano, TX 75074FAX (214) 423-8515(214)424-6511

Mr. William L. VolkManaging DirectorChampaign-Urbana Mass Transit

District801 East University AvenueUrbana, IL 61801-2096(217) 384-8188

Mr. Theodore G. Wiegle, Jr.Executive DirectorRegional Transportation AuthorityOne North Dearborn StreetSuite 1100Chicago, IL 60602FAX (312) 917-0846(312)917-0700

Mr. Leslie R. WhiteExecutive DirectorClark County Public Transportation

Benefit Area AuthorityP.O. Box 2729Vancouver, WA 98668-2529(206) 696-4494

COMMITTEE MEETING TITLE

DATE

NAME AFFILIATION

COMMITTEE MEETING TIT.LEa

DATE

NAME AFFILIATION

Meeting Notes 1990-02-08 - Portland State University

Documents

Transcript of Meeting Notes 1990-02-08 - Portland State University