TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (Transprtatin Advisry Bard / Technical Advisry Cmmittee) Minutes Vice Chair Tm Fahey called the Transprtatin Advisry Bard (TAB) meeting t rder n April 11, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in the Cuncil Chambers f City Hall, 380 A Avenue, Lake Osweg, Oregn. Members Present: Excused / Absent: TAB: Vice Chair Thmas Fahey, Peter Gdkin, Dnald McHarness and Heather Peck TAC: Phill Wrth and Erin Fergusn, Kittlesn & Assciates; Tm Mills, Service Planner, Tri-Met; and Gail Curtis, Planner, ODOT TAB: Chair Gregg Mindt and David Jrling TAC: Amy Rse, Metr Cuncil Liaisn: Guest(s): Staff / cnsultant(s) present: Cuncilr Jeff Gudman Skip Ormsby, Birdshill CPO/Neighbrhd Assciatin; A gentleman and lady representatives fr the Frest Hills Hmewners Assciatin; Staff: Nancy Flye, Traffic Engineering Technician; Erica Rney, Assistant City Engineer; Laura Weigel, Assciate Planner; Phill Wrth and Erin Fergusn, Kittlesn & Assciates; Sidar Sin, Develpment Prject Manager, Ecnmic and Capital Develpment Department; Lt. Sctt Thran, LOPD; and Cindy Waggener, Administrative Supprt Public Cmment Cuncilr Gudman clarified that when he had discussed a financing plan fr majr prjects at the February meeting he had nt suggested mving the City maintenance facility t the schl maintenance facility but that ne pssible way t pay fr a new City maintenance facility culd be t have a jint peratin with the Schl District. The Schl District wuld sell its existing facility and mve t the existing City maintenance facility. Agenda Review The cmmittee reviewed the agenda. Updated Draft Gals with Objectives and Evaluatin Criteria The Cmmittee discussed the April 4, 2012 memrandum frm the Prject Management Team: Technical Memrandum 5.2 - Gals, Objectives and Evaluatin Criteria. It cntained the transprtatin-related visin statement and listed related draft gals and bjectives. 2035 VISION A CONNECTED COMMUNITY We have safe, efficient and cnvenient transprtatin chices. There are frequent and reliable public transprtatin ptins that make it easy t mve arund ur city and the regin. Pathways, sidewalks, radways and bike rutes encurage residents f all neighbrhds t walk and bike safely.
Gal 1. Safety: Imprve safety fr pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and autmbiles. Gal 2. Transprtatin Chices: Increase pprtunities t cmfrtably and cnveniently walk, bike and take transit. Gal 3. Efficiency: Optimize perfrmance f the existing transprtatin system while prviding adequate access t adjacent prperties. Gal 4. Cnvenience: Design and equip the transprtatin system t be easy, cmfrtable and intuitive t use fr all travelers. Gal 5. Accessibility: Create a transprtatin system that prvides pprtunities fr all cmmunity members t reach daily needs and services. Gal 6. Sustainability: Prvide a transprtatin system that supprts peple, places and prsperity fr tday and future generatins. During the discussin the grup nted that Gal 2. Transprtatin Chices did nt mentin driving. They asked if Gal 3. Efficiency was abut vehicle travel. Mr. Wrth cnfirmed that. They reasned that if the visin statement talked abut the frequency f public transprtatin there shuld be a gal related t that. They questined why the Efficiency gal nly mentined prviding adequate access t adjacent prperties and did nt refer t a larger gegraphic regin, cmmercial areas r hubs. The cnsultant explained that in general terms transprtatin chices referred t mdes ther than the autmbile because the ther mdes were nt as well develped. He explained a radway was mre efficient in mving traffic when it had very few direct accesses t adjacent land uses alng it. The Tri-Met representative cautined that frequency f service and rute planning was clsely related t land use and ridership. There had t be enugh service t meet the demand withut running empty buses. Ms. Weigel advised if the cmmittee recmmended adding driving t Transprtatin Chices the CAC wuld cnsider revising that gal at the end f the prcess. Mr. McHarness supprted including driving as ne f the transprtatin chices because the city needed t imprve driving in the city. One f the advisrs suggested the gal culd call fr increasing travel ptins. That culd include things like mre carpling and transprtatin demand management. Ms. Weigel suggested being clear and cnsistent: If the Efficiency gal was talking abut cars then driving shuld be listed in the Transprtatin Chices gal. An advisr suggested cmbining the efficiency and cnvenience gals. She suggested rewrding the Efficiency gal t call fr the city t ptimize perfrmance f the existing transprtatin system. She related that since the last TSP better technlgy was available t imprve the perfrmance f a transprtatin system such as better timing f lights and signs telling peple abut rad cnditins. The advisrs mentined things they did nt see in the dcument. It needed t better reflect the interrelatinship f transprtatin and land use. It shuld address freight mvement. The gals culd talk abut priritizing activity centers r activity ndes. The cmmittee then discussed the draft bjectives that wuld help achieve the gals. They highlighted aspects f the fllwing bjectives: GOAL 2 Transprtatin Chices A. Prvide a cntinuus netwrk f pedestrian facilities (sidewalk r multiuse paths) cnnecting residential areas with each ther as well as key activity centers and transit stps. B. Prvide a cntinuus netwrk f bicycle facilities (bicycle lanes r multiuse paths) cnnecting residential areas with each ther as well as key activity centers and transit stps. A cmmittee member suggested remving the list in parentheses because bicycle facilities were mre than just bicycle lanes r multiuse paths. Gal 1. Safety A. Reduce the number and severity f crashes fr all mdes. Ms. Curtis suggested rewrding this t call fr the city t reduce the number f fatalities and the severity f crashes fr all mdes. That wuld crrespnd with the reginal plan s perfrmance measure t reduce fatalities by a certain amunt. Page 2 f 6
GOAL 2 Transprtatin Chices C. Imprve transit stp amenities t cnsistently include shelters, lighting and benches. GOAL 4 Cnvenience C. Identify key reginal transit rutes/services and prvide pprtunities fr bicyclists, pedestrians and mtrists t access thse rutes/services (e.g., park n rides, prtected bike biking). Mr. Mills cautined that the dcument had jurisdictinal cludiness and might be t specific when it talked abut transit stp amenities and develping rutes. Mr. Wrth cnfirmed the bjectives were related t partnering with Tri-Met. At the gals and bjectives level the aspiratin was t create a system that wrked. There was nt as much cncern abut wnership and peratinal respnsibilities. Mr. Mills explained that he wanted t make sure the bjectives did nt create expectatins that Tri-met culd nt meet. GOAL 1 Safety C. Integrate safety educatin, enfrcement, and emergency services with engineering slutins. The Cmmittee suggested rewrding this t make it clearer that this bjective just listed the fur e s as types f tls that culd be used. It was nt necessarily calling fr integrating them tgether, althugh that happened. Perhaps it culd say, prvide r crdinate instead f integrate. Mr. Wrth asked Cmmittee members t review the visin, gals and bjectives again befre the next meeting; attend the pen huse the next day, if pssible; and then prvide feedback at the next meeting. Mdal Plan Maps and CIP Prjects The Cmmittee discussed the March 20, 2012 memrandum frm the Prject Management Team: Technical Memrandum 4.1 Mdal Plans. The dcument ffered technical infrmatin related t street classificatins and vlumes and radway design standards and typical crss sectins. Then it psed the fllwing discussin questins (page 10): Des the City have r desire >5 lane crss sectins n any majr arterials? Shuld the ptin t prvide a 3rd travel lane in each directin be remved? Shuld prviding an 11 parking/bike lane be an ptin fr sme radways as an alternative t prviding 6 bike lanes OR 8 parking lanes? Shuld the designs fr minr arterials and majr cllectrs be mre differentiated? Have reduced width lcal street crss sectins develped since the 1997 TSP been well received? Discuss perfrmance with emergency service prviders and garbage/recycling service prviders. Shuld shared lane markings, buffered bike lanes, r ther bicycle treatments be addressed in the design standards? The staff advised the city s current standards allwed up t six travel lanes (3 in each directin) plus turn lanes, s there culd be a 7-lane crss sectin. Such a rad had never been built in Lake Osweg. The staff asked if the cmmittee wuld ever want t see that kind f rad in Lake Osweg. If nt, it likely shuld be remved as an ptin. They clarified travel lanes meant vehicle lanes, nt bike lanes. The cnsultant advised that adding mre lanes might attract mre traffic t that particular radway. The grup bserved that wider rads might be cunter t the visin because they made it harder fr pedestrians t crss and they might attract mre pass-thrugh traffic. They did nt anticipate that such a wide rad it wuld never happen in Lake Osweg. They did nt hear the cmmunity calling fr it. Cunty Club and Bnes Ferry Rad wuld never be that wide. Mst f the rads were cnstrained by the right-f-way. The cnsultant related that Hillsbr had been expanding Crnell Rad t as many as eight lanes, but that had nt slved their cngestin prblem. He said designing fr such a large capacity was designing fr abut an hur in the mrning and an hur in the evening. The rest f the day that amunt f capacity was nt needed. It was a lt f mney t spend fr a cuple f hurs a day. Ms. Rney advised that Kruse Way currently featured fur activity lanes Page 3 f 6
plus turn lanes. If the area became a fully laded, denser, emplyment area it might warrant a six lane crss sectin. She dubted the city wuld want that. Ms. Flye advised the alternative t expanding the radway wuld be t refine the signal crridr. The cnsultants asked the Cmmittee t cntinue t think abut this. The grup then cnsidered hw the design standards shuld address bicycle facilities. The current TSP did nt address them. A cmmittee member related that ODOT s design standards included standards related t bicycle facilities. It als encuraged them. It referred t Prtland s unique experiments fr bike facilities. Lake Osweg s TSP culd refer t the ODOT plan. Ms. Rney hped ptins wuld be laid ut in the TSP s the staff wuld be able t shw them t develpers wh were required t make frntage imprvements. The cnsultants asked the grup t read and think abut Lcal Street Cnnectins and Access Management (see page 11). The dcument discussed the Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan (starting n page 13). It cntained the Sidewalk Inventry map and a map f existing Bicycle Facilities. It asked the fllwing questins (see page 19): Are n-street parking lanes and bike lanes currently prvided n any streets within the City? Is there desire t accmmdate bth facilities n sme streets in the future? Where are shared radway facilities currently lcated (r where were they prpsed in the 1997 TSP)? Des LO have a bike parking requirement in their cde? Shuld the TSP update incrprate mre innvative bicycle facilities such as buffered bike lanes, cycle tracks, r bike bulevards? The cnsultants clarified that a buffered bike lane r a cycle track was where the bike lane was separated frm the vehicle lane by a physical divider, nt just a paint stripe. Mr. Sin cnfirmed the cde already cntained a bike parking requirement. Anther cmmittee member saw a need fr mre bike parking at sme f the larger stres in the cmmunity. Mr. Sin clarified that the Dwntwn Parking Plan was nly abut vehicle parking. Ms. Weigel suggested the cmmittee culd lk at the existing requirements and determine if they were adequate. Planned Transprtatin Prjects The memrandum cntained a table that listed the prjects that were currently in the CIP and indicated whether they were funded r unfunded (see page 33). The staff handed ut a better map than the ne in the packet that indicated where any prject that was prpsed in a city r neighbrhd plan was lcated. A larger versin f the map was psted n the wall. The cnsultants led the grup in an exercise in which each cmmittee member was given clred dts t place n the map t indicate prjects they believed the City shuld priritize. The cnsultants advised that the cmmittee wuld cntinue t refer t the maps during future meetings. They wuld lk at existing facilities, identify the gaps and deficiencies, and lk at hw the prjects that were n the list culd address them. They nticed places where the dts seemed t be clustered: Prject 117 Bike lane n Bnes Ferry Rad; Prject 74 the Six Crners intersectin n Cuntry Club; and Prject 49 - a paving prject. When asked if prjects had already been priritized, Ms. Rney related they were priritized n different Parks, Engineering and Planning lists. Staff s gal was t pull all the prjects tgether frm all the lists and put them int ne, priritized, list. It wuld be in the next CIP. Cuncilr Gudman added that the Cuncil desired t have all the prjects n ne priritized list. Preliminary Funding Frecast The packet cntained a Preliminary Funding Frecast. It was clr-cded t shw which prjects were funded and unfunded. Ms. Rney advised this did nt shw all f the prjects that wuld be n the cmprehensive list staff was wrking n. Mr. Wrth related that pen huse participants wuld be prvided with the infrmatin s they wuld gain an appreciatin f where the mney came frm and Page 4 f 6
hw much it cst t d transprtatin prjects. A pie chart illustrated Street Fund revenue surces: the Street Maintenance Fee (billed in utility bills - 50%); fuel tax and vehicle licensing fees (state revenue sharing based n ppulatin 40%); and franchise fees (PGE paid fr the right t have their utility in the public right-f-way). Anther pie chart illustrated hw the mney was spent each year. The cmmittee wanted t knw hw Lake Osweg cmpared with ther cities and what the value f the ttal pie was. Mr. Wrth recalled Lake Osweg was furth r fifth highest f the nine r ten cities in the regin. Ttal Street Fund revenue was typically $5 millin t $5.1 millin per year. The mst recent frecast shwed spending f $5.2 millin t $5.3 millin a year. After spending 35% f it n peratins; 41% f it n repaving; 17% n ther maintenance (like replacing signs and striping streets) there was 7% left fr ther imprvements (bike lanes, sidewalks, etc. n the prject list). Tri- Met, ODOT and Clackamas Cunty might spend mney n facilities they wned in the city but nt n city-wned radways. The cnsultants listed the cst f different types f prjects. The estimates assumed the prjects were all dne in the existing public right-f-way and the City wuld nt have t buy additinal right-f-way. Striping a bike lane cst abut $5 per lineal ft, r $25,000 a mile. An 8 wide, asphalt, shared use path cst $50 a lineal ft. A six-ft wide sidewalk with curb and gutter cst just under $100 per lineal ft. Widening a rad by six feet fr a bike lane and striping it was almst $150 per lineal ft. Widening a rad t add anther 12-ft vehicle travel lane cst almst $300 per lineal ft. The cnsultants wanted t knw if the grup felt pen huse participants wuld find the infrmatin understandable and useful. The cmmittee bserved there was a deficit every year and that was nt sustainable. Ms. Rney agreed. She related the city was trying t address the prblem thrugh five year planning. State revenue sharing wuld be quite flat fr the next five years. Ms. Curtis suggested shwing peple a chart that illustrated gas tax revenue was ding dwn. It was nt indexed t inflatin and vehicles were getting better mileage. Eventually the issue f hw t finance the transprtatin system wuld have t be discussed. Fr the first time in ODOT s histry its CIP nly had maintenance prjects in it. There were n prjects t prvide new r expanded capacity. Plan fr Cnnected Cmmunity Open Huse Ms. Weigel described the materials peple wuld be prvided with and hw participants wuld rtate int and ut f each f eight statins. They wuld participate in a dts n the map exercise. The staff planned t give the cmmittee an verview at the next cmmittee meeting. Public Cmment Skip Ormsby, Chair f the Birdshill CPO/Neighbrhd Assciatin, annunced the grup was hsting a panel discussin n the tpic f rad tlling the fllwing week. He invited cmmittee members t cntact him via his email address bhrdtlls@gmail.cm fr mre infrmatin. The Cmmittee s ODOT representative clarified that ODOT was putting tgether a draft plicy n tlling, but had nt prpsed actually ding any tlling. She asked if Ms. Weigel culd circulate the draft plicy t the cmmittee members. Mr. Ormsby invited anyne t cntract him via email. A representative fr the Frest Hills Hmewners Assciatin, wanted t knw if the cmmittee wuld address transit parking at the Safeway stre in dwntwn Lake Osweg. Currently there were n parking facilities there fr transit-users bikes r vehicles. That parking gt shved int the neighbrhd. Mr. Sin advised the Dwntwn Parking Plan fcused n shrt term slutins, but the Plan acknwledged there was an issue related t transit and emplyee parking that shuld be addressed ver the lnger term. The Cmprehensive Plan update prcess wuld cnsider transprtatin related issues. Page 5 f 6
TSPAC COMMENTS Nne ADJOURNMENT The next meeting was scheduled n May 9, 2012.There being n ther business Vice Chair Fahey adjurned the meeting at apprximately 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, H:\TAB\TABMinutes\ Nancy Flye Traffic Engineer Technician Page 6 f 6