City Council Packet - 04/21/1980 {
s TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION AGENDA
FOWLER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
LECTURE ROOM
APRIL 21, 1980, 7:30 P.M.
1 . CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PARK & RIDE STATION FOR TRI-MET - Phillip Selinger
4. FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY BUILDING FUND COMMITTEE - Discussion by Committee.
5. EASEMENT VACATION LOT 7,,MORNING HILL SUBDIVISION & OTHERS - Dir. of Public Works
6. S.W. VARNS STREET L.I.D. REMONSTRANCES - Director of Public Works.
7. S.W. McDONALD STREET SEWER L.I.D. PETITION - Director of. Public Works,
8. SALE OF BA14CROFT BONDS - Legal Counsel.
9. AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY & STATE POLICE REGARDING INTOXILYZER - Chief of Police. r
i
N
10. REVIEW HEARING PROCEDURE REGARDING APPEALS FR PLANNING COMMISSION co
�
TO COUNCIL - Legal Counsel. o
11. THREE ZONINGORDINANCE AMENDMENTS - Chapters 18..36, 18.32, & 18.20 -
Planning Director.
12. OTHER
13. EXECUTIVE SESSION - Under the provisions of O.R.S. 192.660 (2) (a) the
City.Council;'will recess into executive session to consider TPOA labor
negotiations and personnel matters.
14. ADJOURNMENT
4-
4"
i
h
k
P
y.
k
{
f i G A K_ D C I T Y C 0 U N C I L
STUDY TSESSION^MINUTES,�APRIL 21, 1980, 7:30 P.M.
1. ROLLCALL: Present: Mayor Alan Mickelson; Councilmen Tom Brian, John E. Cook,
Kennett, W. Scheckla (arriving, at 9:25 P.M.);
Councilwoman
Nancie Stiml.er; Chief of Police, Robert Adams; Legal
Counsel, Joc Bailey; City Administrator, R. R. Barker;
Public Works Director, Frank Currie; City Recorder/
Finance Director, Doris Hartig; Planning Director, Aldace
Howard; Research & Development Assistant, Martha McLennan.
2. PARK & RIDE STATION FOR TRT-MET
Phillip Selinger, Tri-Met Planner, described the five year transit development
(a)
plan for the metropol.itan area. He explained the study and research which
went into the development of the plan and the final adoption process.
(b) Ken Stanly, Tri-Met, described the service im_r.rovement plan for the Tigard
area, explaining that a radial system will bQ developed with Tigard at the
hub. This will allow cross transit from the Beaverton area to Tualatin and
several other small communities in the area without the need to go by way
of downtown Portland. The improvements will also include a dramatic increase
of express buses going from Tigard to downtown. Portland, and includesth e
possibility of :light rail . He concluded by describing the five year
schedule for the improvements.
(c) Mr. Selinger described the financing possibilities of this program, noting
that more money would be needed. lie. discussed the possibility of going for
a tax base and also urged local participation. Ile went on to describe
capital improvements (transit center and park and ride) which would be needed
ca the Tigard area and asked or Council direction on the sel.cction of sites.
in the Tigard
the selection process and told Council that the recommended sites
were on Commercial_ Street (for the transit center) and at the intersection of
99W and Park Street for the Park and Ride Station.
(d) Council discussed the possibilities of combining tale two developments; as
well as problems 'with congestion and parking in the downtown area. Mr.
Selinger explained that there was not enough available land in the downtown
core for both facilities and also noted:that the Park and Ride site should
not be located in such a way that this traffic has to come into the core area.
(e) Councilwoman Stimler, noting the possible undesirable impacts of the ,Park
and Ride as well as the: efforts to block traffic from the.south'as far to
the south as possible„ questioned the proposed site of the Park and Ride.
Mr. Selinger explained the other sites considered and the 'reasons that they
were not preferred locations.
(f.) Presentation was .for information only and when further details are worked
out 'Tri-Met will 'report back to Council.
r
- s
LINUAM I
3. FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY BUILDING FUND COMMITTEE
(a) Madeline Utz explained the formation of this committee and the need for
definitive direction from Council before they proceed further. She explain-
ed the options of a new library facility including purchasing the current
space, purchasing other space in the City, building an independent library
building, or building a civic complex which could house the library as well.
as other City departments.
(b) Sharon Takahashi, President of the Friends of the Library described the amount
of support and interest already generated and asked if Council felt that the
public support warranted development or if further support was needed.
(c) Donna Hammersly asked what role Council would like to see this committee
assume, noting the experience and energy they have had in community organiza-
tion.
(d) Council discussed the recent upswing in interest in the development of a
civic center (as the GI Joes complex is developed as well as the greenway
park running along the creek between .Main and Hall Blvd). They also express-
ed concern regarding acquiring funds for this development.
(e) Planning Director suggested that with all of the proposed development in this
area, perhaps it was time all interested parties get together so that the
downtown area could be discussed and planned in a comprehensive manner.
(f) Consensus of Council was that a meeting should be scheduled for all parties
and interests, and that the previous civic center proposal should be con-
sidered again.
(g) Ms. Utz thenaskedthat the $5,973 seed money for the building _fund which was
put into the 'budget in 1979-80 be protected by placing it in a trust account'
before the end of the fiscal year so' that°it will not be returned to the
general fund.
(h) Consensus of 'Council was to take formal action next week to place the library
fund money in`a trust account.
4. EASE14ENT VACATION LOT 7`MORNING HILL SUBDIVISION
(a) Public Works Director explained that the developer had constructed the
garage of the house 212 feet into the sewer easement. He stated that there
was no .conflict between the structure and current sewer lines, and recommend-
ed that'Council approve the vacation`.
(b) Consensus of Council to place this on next week's agenda.
5. S.W. VARNS STREET-L..I.D. REMONSTRANCES
(a) Public Works Director reported that two remonstrances had been filed. The
first objected due to current negotiations regarding possible sale of. the
PAGE 2 - Study Session Council Minutes - April 21, 1980
t
k
sl
a
property to the State, but Mr. Currie felt that the Lot should be included
and noted that the street and sewer improvements would increase the value
of the property and therefore would be compensated by the State. He
recommended that the boundary of the district not be altered. The second
remonstrance regarded a lot which was not included in the district. He
went on to say that the lot should have been included and did not know why
Ginther Engineering had left it out. He pointed out that there was no way
at this point to redefine the boundary unless the property owner would
volunteer to come into the district. He concluded by recommending that
Council approve the boundaries and assessment distribution as written, and
stated that this would be on the next regular meeting agenda.
6. SALE OF BA14CROFTS
(a) Legal Counsel reported that an oversite by the legislature had left the
interest rate to be charged by City at seven percent and allowed bonds to be
sold at ten percent. He recommended that Council adopt an ordinance allowing
a charge up to ten percent so that this risk will be minimized. He further
explained the City cannot go back and change rates on L. I.D. 's already
formed.
(b) Consensus of Council to have staff prepare the necessary ordinance and .place
it on the next regular session agenda.
7, S.W. McDONALD STREET SEWER L.1 .D. PETITION
(a) Public Works Director reported that a petition had been received containing
937 of necessary signatures. He explained problems regarding the assessment
of engineering work to date and selection of an engineer to proceed with the
project. He recommended that we proceed with estimates and negotiations
with the engineers, and schedule the necessary public hearing.
(b) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilwoman stimler to direct staff
to proceed as per the recommendation of the Public. Works Director.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council members present.
8. ' AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY & STATE POLICE REGARDING INTOXILYZER
(a) Chief of Police, referring to the letter received from the State, explained
that at no cost to City, the State Would provide the equipment, maintenance,
certification and training of operators. He went On to say that it would be
required that the City turn over our old intoxi;yzer,. He recommended that
Council -<iuLnoiSze
the Mayor to sign and execute Lhe agreement.
(b) Motion by Councilman Cook, seconded by Councilwoman Stimler to authorize the
Mayor to sign and execute the agreement.,.
Approved by unanimous vote of Council members present.
PAGE 3 - Study Session Council Minutes - April 21, 1980
r
WME
_
r
j
9. REVIEW HEARING PROCEDURE. REGARDING APPEALS FROM PLANNING COMMISSION
(a) Legal Counsel stated that the items of concern as he understood them were
(1) whether or not Planning Commission members should be allowed to testify
on appeals, and (2) how might proponent and opponent testimony be controlled
in appeals. He reported that his feeling on the first issue was that we
should retain the current system which does not allow them to testify. This
is based on case law, especially the Fasano decision which puts the burden of
proof of appeals on the developer. In regard to the second issue he explained
the possible ways this could be addressed (1) considering the appeal strictly
by the record and allowing no testimony of any kind, (2) allowing only those
who have spoken before the:. Planning Commission to testify and limiting their
testimony to a summation and argumentation of previously heard testimony, or
(3) allowing open testimony, lie felt that the current system (#2) was the
best as long as Council maintained strict control, and did not feel that
the ordinance needed to be amended.
(b) Cliff Speaker, Planning Commission, expressed his feeling that if proponents
and opponents were allowed to testify the Planning Commission should also
be allowed to explain the basis for their decisions.
(Councilman Scheckl.a arrived 9:25 P.M.)
(c) After much discussion by Council it was agreed that this should be discussed
with the Planning Commission on the meeting of May 5th.
10. THREE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
(a) Planning Director explained that several amendments were needed and reviewed
each. The first, amending Chapter 1.8.36 would alter requirements in the
commercial zones along 99W from Highway 217 to I-5. The second, amending
Chapter. 18.32 would allow small animal hospitals as a conditional use in
al conditions to be placed on this use
commercial/residential zones. Typic
would -include ,prohibitions an large animals, boarding, and keeping animals
outdoors. The final ordinance amendment (Chapter 18.20) would delete all
references to an R-1.5 zone (15000 sq. ft. single family residential) . He
explained that in practice and in all planning texts there ,is no ;reference
to this zone. He: recommended approval of a11. amendments and requested that
they be placed on next week's agenda.
11. OTHER
(a) Planning Director reported that the Senior Citizen Center conditional use
permit would be considered by the Planning Commission in May.
(b) Planning Director invited all;interested parties to attend the Planning
Commission meeting of April '22nd at which the Gl Joe's development would
be discussed
(c) Councilman Scheckla noting reported problems regarding boarding dogs, asked
if any action could be Planning Director reported that an ordinance
PAGE 4 — Study Session Council Minutes— April 21, 1980
x .
{
k
will be needed prior to any enforcement.
(d) Public Works Director reported that a request had been received for a
street vacation on 100th Street. He stated that in-put had been received
from all departments and that the final recommendation was to deny the vaca-
tion request. He noted particular concerns regarding traffic flow and
emergency vehicle access.
(e) Public Works Director reported that three petitions for LTD's had been
received: (1) Hampton Street for street and sewer improvements and (2)
92nd for sewer improvements. He stated that not enough signatures had been
received for the Hampton improvements, but that 70% had signed for the 92nd
improvements and tie would discuss this further at the regular session next
week.
STUDY SESSION ADJOURNED: 10:15 P.M.
EXECUTIVE SESSION CONVENED: 10:25 P.M.
Under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (2) (a) City Council recessed into executive
session to consider TPOA labor negotiations. Staff reported that negotiations were
at impasse and would proceed to mediation.
EXECUTIVE SESSION ADJOURNED: 11:35 P.M. j
i
City Recorder
I
L/
ATTEST:
Mayo
g '
PAGE' 5 - Study Session Council Minutes - April 22, 1980
AGENDA
Meeting with the Tigard City Council and Tri-Met
Transit Development Program
April 21, 1980 - 7:30 p.m.
Introduction
The Transit Development Program
Existing transit service
-The TDP service concept
-Proposed service improvements in Tigard
-Tentative service implementation schedule
Tri-Met finances
The Capital Improvement Program '
-Transit Centers/Transfer Stations
-Park and Ride Lots
Discussion
}
TRANSIT FOR THE 80's
TIGARD SERVICE AND FACILITIES
1. Introduction
Tri-Met enters the 1980's under challenging conditions. In the Portland Region,
public mass transportation has proven itself to be an essential part of the trans-
portation system. Moreover, the problems of the next decade--energy, environment,
traffic congestion--promise to greatly intensify the role of transit. But as tran-
sit faces the challenge of increased demand for service, it must do so with very
limited resources. In a time of intense public concern over expenditure of tax
dollars, Tri-Met must constantly find ways of improving productivity and efficiency
of the service resources it has. Finally, there is the challenge of uncertainty.
Serious and unpredictable shortages of energy, housing, or disposable income could
radically increase transit ridership demand, and at the same time reduce local tax-
based revenues for transit.
To help meet these challenges, Tri-Met has developed a Transit Development Program
(TDP) which outlines transit policy, a service plan, capital development program,
and financial program for the next five years. This program is to be phased over
this period of time and will be coordinated with current transit projects such as
the Banfield Light Rail Transit Project. The plan requires that by 1983 Tri-Met
receive an additional source of operating funds to support expanded transit
service. While this plan does provide for significant. improvements in transit
service it is designed to maximize productivity of scarce transit resources. This
is accomplished principally by minimizing service extensions into low density
development where transit service is costly and underutilized. it is oriented to
the use of "transit centers" at subregional activity centers which are connected
by direct, high frequency "trunk line" routes. . These trunk routes are to be fed
by local bus routes which are focused on the transit centers. The trunk and
feeder routes are to be scheduled to;meet at the transit center at the same time,
facilitating convenient transit between routes. From one of these centers the
transit user can travel to virtually any part of the metropolitan area quickly and
conveniently. This concept is ;presently being applied to West Side transit ser
-
vice_with transit centers in Beaverton and Cedar Hills. The use of strategically
located park`-and-ride lots allows residents of low density, 'outlying areas who are
not directly served by feeder bus routes to drive to a place where they can park
the car and transfer to frequent, direct transit service to downtown Portland or
other employment centers.
This report outlines the Transit Development Program with respect to the Tigard
area, While the Transit DevelopmentProgram is a guide for future service, it is
a flexible plan which will change as dictated by national and local circumstances,
funding resources, and resources and conditions within -iri-Met. Particular
emphasis is given to a planned Transit Center and Park-and-Ride lot to be located
in Tigard.
1
2. Existinq Transit Service
Transit service to Tigard currently consists of the 43, 44, 45, and 77 routes as
shown in Figure 1. The 44-Sherwo6d route operates primarily on Highway 9914
serving Sherwood, King City and Tigard: providing direct service to downtown
Portland. The 43-Tualatin Acres route is more localized, operating from Ourham
Road in South Tigard, north on Hall Boulevard and east to downtown Portland via
Taylors Ferry Road and Capitol Highway. The 45-Greenburg route operates from
Northwest Tigard, through central Tigard, and north on Greenburg Road to Washing-
ton Square and to downtown Portland in local service. The 77-Be-ltline route uses
Hall Boulevard through Tigard connecting Lake Oswego, Tigard, Washington Square,
Beaverton, Cedar Hills, West Burnside, and Eastside locations.'
Peak hour service on the 43 route is every 15 minutes; every 50 minutes in the off
peak. Route 44 peak hour service is every 10 minutes and every hour during the
off peak. The 45 route operates every 25 minutes in the peak and every bO minutes
in the off peak. The route 77-Beltline route operates every 30 minutes all day.
3. Major Service Improvements Plan
The TDP Major Service Improvements plan includes additions to transit service in
the Tigard area as shown in Figure 2. This service is to include trunkline routes
to downtown Portland to the north and northeast and is to focus on a transit center
to be located in or near downtown Tigard. Seven local routes would feed the two
trunk routes and a limited stop downtown Portland route via I-5 and Barbur Boule-
vard. The 41 route, serving South Tigard, operates at 20 minute peak and 30
minute offpeak headways. The 42 route, operating south to Tualatin, has the same
headway. The 43 route also has 20 and 30 minute headways and operates southwest
Tigard on a loop route to Washington Square
to Sherwood. The 27 route serves West '
from downtown Tigard with 20 and 30 minute headways. The 59 route serves Borth
Tigard connecting downtown Tigard with the Barbur Boulevard transit center. The
134 route serves eas `Lake Oswego
20 minute peak and 30
t Tigard operating to
minute off,peak headways. The 151 route also operates to Lake Oswego via a more
direct route and operates only in the peak hours every 15 minutes. Direct
service,to downtown Portland is provided by the 4 trunkline via 5cholls' Ferry Road i
and Sunset Highway at 10 minute peak and ib minute off peak headways, and the b
trunkline via Highway 9914 (Sarbur _Boulevard) with 5 minute peak and 30 minute off ? '
peak service. ` The 150 route operates in the peak hour only every 15 minutes>via .
;
I-5 and Barbur Boulevard. Tigard's centralized location with respect to Westside
communities mal<es it a busy transit focal point.'
4. Capital Facilities
The Transit Development Program identifies three facilities to be `ocated in the x
Tigard area. These are-a downtown Tigard Transit Center, a; Washington Square
transit center, and the Tigard Park-and-Ride facility.
1
The Tigard Transit Center is to serve ten transit routes in an off-street
facility toincludepaving, passenger shelters, landscaping, lighting and other
amenities. This facility is to be located in the downtown area to allow not only
efficient transfer between routes but also: to support downtown retail and employ- i
ment activities.
t' t
The Washington Square Transit Center serves a similar function as that to be located
-2-
I
--aavLu `
• �5.. c� 4-2
-
' Wcli
•� +y N
aS� V • y.
_ • i l� ti o� F-- N r aQjCD
I' - y�••tl �14� 7 ( ,oa Q) +-r Z U J ton t •a d'
o s-
LLJ
o }� • � i Nom• �+ -
o d av
° '•"`°�v.• 7th :i
twSL •'�}go—'_" 2' -� : ba�.m:tea � �, a J
r
43
Xe
SIR EMM
� 0.
�) .;G '8'na:.,:. ,'s-_.. ,. .mss.. f�:.i .. ....'''�•_%•:aa .. :Z:::,p.���`�``. .o,
o o:,
o•'
L '
'�•a:'1' may �"
----- � ,� yep• >^ ,��
M L 7 .. R l d •. � _
.a
. a -'•
r .0
•r� jff•'''"'' Gl".3Ybo L--- r' ' ''a � ittr
o �
M t `
}
L�i•.��+P"" � _" ,.�.I•'',jr\y+j a ALL .� L 1 `s\\ f
\.. ...••- ' .� .po•r oe� � A� µY`Op �.u.? (1 '^�/f4�• •1
cu
t Y � Z •? S_ •� +° 3�l
p o a N O z u u04 o o'
n.. vLi �
9 oa T,4 J �� Val tti, Gl aOr W co
cr
ccr
\/J N
� t
rive •`•� Aml'era
Y� e000 � • .s =, � w 3i �� •
��'�~� i•� �y u _ r S� � � < t1+ � 'as tom•`
a..zv a
��� �• � � c � -.. ...�m� ':Kash e,';Ytn::%i4`i' _ � Y.
vL i
4
__ •� Z' C.
a
p J J
lza rT iP .a
� •`� 'may •• T
oawaanos LA s
o
s •
_ 1
in downtown Tigard. It is to serve eight transit routes and, if possible, is to
( be coordinated with the pedestrian and vehicular circulation in Washington Square.
The Tigard Park-and-Ride lot allows persons who are unable to walk to a bus
route to drive a short distance and transfer to transit service. This facility
should not be located in the downtown but should be in a centralized area where
it can be accessed from several roads. It should also be located to have a maximum
reduction of traffic. This facility is to include approximately 300 parking
spaces, landscaping, bus loading areas, passenger shelter, and passenger informa-
tion.
Both transit centers are scheduled for completion in 1982 and UMTA Section 3
capital funds are being sought to assist in the financing of these projects. The
park-and-ride lot •is scheduled for completion in 1981 and has been authorized to
receive $300,000 in E(4) interstate transfer funds for site development.
5. Transit Center Site Evaluation Criteria
The following criteria are appropriate for the evaluation of a transit center site:
1. Site availability with respect to long term lease arrangement, purchase or.
condemnation (in order of preference);
2. Connections with proposed transit services;
3. Connections with existing transit service;
4. Location with respect to downtown activities;
5 Size and topography of the site;
6. Impact on traffic circulation.
Each of the criteria is of equal importance. The first criterion determines, to
a large extent, the>cost .of acquiring a>property. Condemnation is a last resort,;-
and Tri-Met has no precedent for such action although it does have condemnation
powers. The second and third criteria are of obvious importance.` Extensions of
routes to a transit center site should be avoided. The transit center should be
accessible by all existing and planned routes. The site should be near downtown
business and 'employment 'centers. There is great potential for stores and employers
to benefit from the concentration of transit service in the downtown area--similar
to the benefits experienced along Portland's downtown transit mall . A'major`
criterion for the selection of 'a transit center site is its,size and topography.
its size must accommodate most'or%all routes for the time transfer as well as
the layover of some buses. Buses should be able to enter and leave the facility
independently. The topography of the site will affect cost with respect to grading
drainage, land fill and construction'. Naturally, a cleared, level , well drained
site is preferred. The final criterion isimportant to the efficient circulation
of buses and how they mix with local traffic. Signalization treatment is also
important.
6. Tigard Transit Center
Three sites were considered for the Tigard Transit Center. ' These were: (1) the
same site as the Tigard park-and-ride lot to be 'determined, (2) the southeast end E'
of Commercial Street below the Prairie Market, and (3) at a vacant site between the
SP, railroad and Commercial Street halfway between Main Street and Hall ,Boulevard. '
-3- .
x
1 ON
3.1
The first site had a large advantage by consolidating transit facilities, thereby
reducing capital costs and the number of major transit stops. It meets criteria
1, 5 and 6 but would not necessarily meet criteria #2 or 3. The park-and-ride
site, as proposed, is accessible from the direct trunk routes, but not by all of the
local routes. The major disadvantage of this site lies with criterion #4. It is
not desirable to locate a park-and-ride lot near the downtown; however, a transit
center should be near downtown activities. The downtown is also a logical focal
point for both local and trunk transit routes.
The second site, at the southeast end of Commercial Street, is well located and meets
criteria #1, 2, 3 and 6. All routes could access the site and the site is vacant.
Its major disadvantage lies in its small size and its distance from the downtown.
The site could accommodate only a couple of bus pullouts.andwould be practical only
if additional land could be acquired from the Prairie Market. The site is slightly
more than 1/4 mile from Main Street which is a greater than desirable walking dis-
-Cance from the center of downtown activity.
The third site, mid-length along Commercial Street, meets all of the criteria with
the possible exception of criterion #5. This location is presently a stopover
point for one Tri-Met route and would be accessible by all planned service. The
0.6 acre site is vacant and available. It is one block from Main Street making
it accessible by walking from most downtown activities. The site would be
adequate for planned transit service accommodating nine buses or more if necessary.
The owner of the site has expressed an interest in selling it to Tri--Met. The
greatest concern with this site is the possible extension of Ash Street through
this site. Such an extension would reduce the size of the site to an impractical
size of about 0.33 acres.
A further undefined alternative site would be the use of a downtown block as a
"transit way" or mall similar to that in use in downtown Portland. Such an
alternative would have to be identified by the City of Tigard. There are no
locations of obvious adaptation for such a use.
The third site is by far the most desirable location for the Tigard Transit
Center. It is well suited to 'existing needs as well as those identified in the
5-year Transit Development Program. It could also serve as a station for a`
possible future light rail line to Tigard. The second alternative site is
unacceptable; however, the first alternative, the use of the park-and-ride lot,
would be feasible on a temporary basis. If the third preferred site were not
available or were reduced in size, none of these sites would be feasible in the
long term and further study would be required.
A sketch plan of the preferred site, on Commercial Street, is illustrated in
figure 3. As shown, the depth of the site requires a 900 pull-in/pull-out
arrangement with eight islands serving as loading areas. Each loading area
would be provided with shelters and schedule information with possible additional
amenities. The site would be landscaped and lighted. Storm drainagewouldbe
required, particularly in the rear portion of the lot. Movement from,Commercial
Street could be made in any direction. Traffic volumes on Commercial' Street
would not require signal'ization for this facility. The site is 'surrounded by
commercial property and the Southern Pacific Railroad.
-4-
{
1
1 e
1 1
l r r
1P= (4z. rte.
! 1 ILL
l V 1 1-z
IL
chi
' 1
S
1 '
r
y 1 1
� y
4
7. Washington- Square Transit Center
Because the transit center to be located at Washington Square is to be tied to the
shopping center activity, an alternative site analysis is not appropriate at this
time. The exact location and design of this facility, however, will be coordinated
with the shopping center owners. As part of an existing development, this project
should not present any major site or accessibility problems.
8. Park-and-Ride Site Evaluation Criteria
To locate a specific site in the Tigard area for a park-and-ride facility, six
criteria are appropriate for evaluation:
1. Availability and cost with respect to long term lease arrangement, purchase
or condemnation (in order of preference);
2. Accessibility and visibility of the site;
3. Connections with existing transit service;
4. Connections with proposed transit service;
5. Size and topography of the site;
6. impact on congestion in downtown Tigard and major arterials.
Each of the criteria is of equal importance. The first criterion determines, to
a large extent, the cost of acquiring a property. Condemnation is a last resort
and Tri-Met has no precedent for such action although it does have condemnation
powers. The second criterion has significant implications for the success of a
facility. Automobile commuters must be able to get to a lot without going out of
their way. The best publicity for a lot is its visibility from major arterials or
highways. The third and fourth criteria are of obvious importance. Extensions of
routes to service a lot should be avoided to conserve transit travel times and
buses. Service by several routes is desirable to provide service to multiple
destinations and to improve headways and the utilization of the facility: Fast,
frequent downtown service 'isessential. The fifth criterion will affect the
facility capacity, development cost, inconvenience in bad weather, safety, and
local access to the lot. The last criterion relates to the second criterion and
maximizes the benefits of the facility in relieving highway congestion and justi-
fying the project with respect to the Regional TransportationPlan.
g. Tigard Park-and-Ride Lot
Six sites were identified as potential park-and-ride lots as indicated in figure 4.
These sites are:
1. Between:the railroad tracks from Main Street to Hall Boulevard in down-
town Tigard;
2. Commercial Street;
3. Bull Mountain Road and Pacific Highway (S.W. corner);'
4. Beef Bend Road and Pacific Highway (N.W. corner);
5. Hall Boulevard and Burntam Street;
6. Pacific Highway across from Park Street.
The Southern Pacific Railroad site, identified by the City of Tigard, is located
-5-
v�l._x[i' v 1�` r_ SC • � tyVVV)fp+t i� L�V 1
v� Sw t
' � ]`n s� _�� ,9 3 V JS TM hSCI• a 1•, i Y :1.
qq i [T 1- 1 i t
Lj
D 3 ` V111 f.Yf=r: —iUT Sr \` ti Sy ?40� tp +!
ST"
a f:! ". SiX f,hX sT. d-�----'— sw. -•�y ♦p•A; � l ss•. ` y ;a____•l., "e•
�,+t•r
ViA -_.cy._ M 4it•t wPo i + t -1
} o• yT 4\ SY f� 'V9 �• F
CW Aral9S W N34 ^ r �``c
SW. 9LeF•'a !T. R J4 � y�•• J:'
o��f Si. /� OEPN`/ D::1 t 83 �"I,t��V�7�'!i' r Oa 1 �>•P /•••
9.` SW. Y1a1CV TT t;f+ A SW. YUIt 4Y. ' � ` ,1/y yp
v S`T p' 1 LN. 3� �i'�'+i4 d` R1� ?C r+' tST
J` t - / V VII ST " r'y r•F gip.5/. \� 4w. ? ovaa a• I 1 ..
SW. Y11IPX3V
/ y J• O'/
XtLLWCIi ST. p•F S.W. / rV
<J Inr¢br/ yy
P 9 S 1h` rti sno •9.
Svt _11 Y Y:CO•slC f ST
9rle > 6 �f � •M..•..
I1 �� a '. �•-�`...�• ELiOSE
VI1 •� cnrl�� 3� � s dW .fS',O �..
- M/M, QCT � 7{ /� 3 Sw. w0'JVT41VVIEw -•EX
K W LAME y
z C! _ �� 3h. vYe1r• s.v. Sr. -t l
+ E
COPTILS ���?� a ♦v 4 y, iF.gnCsw ST. aSw 1.1Z $T
i , d y •i ,: n 'T. ,hE2 s.. ...-_-�
o _
i.JlJl _ ,S
3-
Sw. , N.ia<
v �
a
,p 3 } sUinlY. O
'S/7iap P
`lxIL11:P ST,
n e e
� T
[bCP4LQ HTS. I I OP Ci ' p.y J, a L
..w 1 it 3W W iYIC.I SW •R saYrLEV (((---.. STf t
Ji
SW. N ml i Ya9 E CSN ss,( x633 37 w; O
1• `
'e 1
p
e y -
Y
Li
o f/
4°;y 1 Figure 3 { i
o i } / _ IDENTIFIED ALTERNATIVE SITES FOR
¢LE5 �i - �tIYG
/ TIGARD PARK &.RIDE LOT
�7•'YN
laYFS � •••
PL.
1. SP Railroad Tracks.
" Q 'a `� A , 2. Commercial Street i
Bull Mountain Rd/ Pacific Hwy
Q. Beef Bend Rd' / Pacific Hwy , C
;� I! 5. Hall Blvd / Burnham Street ,
�xn„ rT 11 6. Pacific Hwy N. of McDonald Street
Tw
1/
ut l
I l i r SXa+hCE SV. [LLYEw Law
„r l j1 i'• !i� 11 a�.i�� 1 "'.moi.�_..."-�
cL ral .Ir 11 ,
e: -
between the Southern Pacific and Burlington Northern tracks between Main Street
and Hall Boulevard, and includes a small adjoining piece of land at Hall Boulevard.
The total land area is approximately 2 acres, but the 50' maximum width of the lot,
and a railroad requirement for a 30' buffer from its tracks, makes the practical
use of this site impossible. The shape of the lot would allow only a single or
possibly a double row of cars. The safety of generating activity within the
railroad right-of-way is questionable.
The Commercial Street site, located between Main Street and Hall .Boulevard, is
approximately 0.6 acres in size This site meets criteria 1. to 4, but its small
size severely limits its parking capacity to approximately 50 cars. The site is
close to downtown Tigard and would generate traffic on these streets which is not
desirable.
The Bull Mountain Road and Pacific Highway site was originally identified by Tri-
Met as the proposed location for the park-and-ride lot. This site includes over
three acres of land behind and south of El Gringo's Restaurant. The site is
accessible via a frontage road along Pacific Highway and is clearly visible from
the southbound side of the highway. It is preferable that park-and-ride lots be
on the inbound side of a highway. The site is located 1.8 miles south of down-
town Tigard. Access to this site by planned trunkline routes would require route
extensions. It would be difficult to access this site with most of the local
routes. The 44 and 45 routes now serving Tigard could easily access this site.
The 43 and 77 routes would not serve this site. This site is presently a sloping
field with some small trees. - Extensive grading would be required on the south end
to accommodate parking facilities. This would increase the cost of developing
this lot. The City of Tigard has identified this site as having no planned use,
but actual availability is undetermined. The site would relieve traffic on Pacific
R Highway, but its outbound location could affect its effectiveness in attracting
automobile commuters. The fact that this site is located at the south end,of
Tigard would affect its ability to' attract users from the eastern and western
residential areas of Tigard. This is a feasible site; however, it has some`limita-
tions,;primarily;with Criterion 5 but also with criteria 1 4 and 6.
The Beef Bend Road and Pacific Highway site is immediatelyadjacent to the Bull
Mountain Road site, (#3) 'to the south. It has similar access and topography
characteristics, although it is more steeply shaped and less suited for development
as a parking lot. This site is 4.33 acres in size which is well suited to the
r
land requirements. Like the Bull Mountain Road site, it is accessible by
existing and planned service but is situated south of much of the residential
development now occurring to the east and west of Pacific Highway. It is on the
outbound side of Pacific' Highway. This site has the same limitations as the Bull
Mountain Road site with particular problems relating to criteria 5 which would be
expensive to resolve.
The Hall Boulevard and Burnham Street site has been offered to Tri-Met for a 10 to
15 year lease by the property owner. The site is southeast of downtown Tigard
and within walking' distance of Main Street. The area surrounding the site is
characterized by light industrial and low density residential development. The
property consists of 4.8 acres and is 150' from Burnham Road on,Hall Boulevard.
Dimensions are roughly square. The site is adjacent to Fanno Creek and a flood
plain but appears dry. Very little;grading of the site would be required, however;
there are several large trees and a small house with sheds which are not in good
condition and could be razed.`
6-
a
The site is presently used as a nursery. The site could be accessed by all four
existing routes with minor route alterations on two of them. All of the routes
proposed in the Major Service Improvements plan could access this site with minor
modifications and extension of service through downtown Tigard for several of
the routes. A ten year lease on the property would allow development of the
site; however, inclusion of a transit center may not be desirable if such a center
would include facilities which could not be moved or depreciated in tete years. A
lease price could be negotiated and might be feasible with payment of taxes on
the property. The site meets all of the criteria except Criterion 2. While
Hall Boulevard is an important arterial , it is only two lanes wide. Burnham and
Commercial Streets are also access roads to the site, but they.are also two lane
streets. The site is approximately I/2 mile from Pacific. Highway via Main and
Burnham Streets which could create congestion problems in downtown Tigard.
The Pacific Highway North of McDonald Street site is located on the inbound side
of Pacific Highway approximately one-third of a mile north of McDonald Street.
The site is along an abandoned section of the old Pacific Highway alignment. The
property is owned by Donald Cooper and is being handled by J. B. Bishops a
developer who has planned uses for the balance of the vacant land. Between three
and four acres of the north end of the sate are available for long-term lease as
a park-and-ride lot. The owner is supportive of such a project and would prefer
a twenty-year lease with an option to purchase after ten years. Tri-Met would make
the site improvements including paving, landscaping, shelter, etc.
The owner has
not expressed interest in the immediate sale of the property to Tri-Met. The
site is dry and flat and has excellent accessibility and visibility from Pacific
Highway. Two of the four existing routes would serve this site, and the other
two routes could be modified to access the location. A couple of the local routes
in Tri-Met°s Major Service Improvements plan would have to be altered to serve the
lot, but all major trunk routes could easily serve the site. The site has an
excellent location with respect to Criterion 6 and access from residential areas
to the 'east, ;west and south of Tigard. All six criteria are met by this location.
A preliminary;design plan for this site is shown in figure '5. Primary access to
file site would be from a 'signalized intersection at Park Street with additional
access from a- signalized;intersection south of the site, to' beuinstallled of part
of the adjacent development. Buses would access the,site by p g _
Pacific Highway or, to turn around, would turn into of
he site at Park Street and
use a turnaround loop A minimum of five buses could use the facility, at one
time. Through, southbound routes would use a bus turnout opposite the park-and
ride lot on Pacific Highway. A pedestrian crosswalk would be provided at Park
Street.
The Pacific I1i0hway site, north of McDonald Street, the preferred Tt. Itn of
the six' sites considered with the exception of an anticipated high cost. t appears
that the land value could be as much as $6 to $7 per square foot which for 159,000
square feet places its value at about one million dollars or $100,000 per year for
lease. This:translates into about,a $1 .50 per day per user subsidy for the use of
the facility. Such an expense, is a substantial burden on Tri-Met, one which cannot
be supported:without the assistance of the local community. The factors that make
this site an effective park and ride location also make it an ideal and expensive`
commercial site.
-7-
t
rp
\ \ u7
77
1 � 0
a w
9 Y w
N
X t
(::r7
v
\�` E
E
i
F
{. Four c:F� the sites considered are either too small or have poor topography.
The Hall and Burnham site has poor accessibility. The preferred site appears
to be too expensive to lease and it is doubtful that capital funding for the
purchase of the site could be available. It is the feeling of Tri-Met staff
that further study will be required before a park and ride site in Tigard
can be determined. A site on or near Pacific Highway is preferred; however,
it is anticipated that the site will need to be located further south than
those sites considered.
Tri-Met is negotiating with the owner of the preferred site for the transit..
center in Tigard. Preliminary site designs have determined that this site
is feasible with respect to planned service improvements. The high anticipated
cost for the park and ride facility represents a necessary unprecedented
financial commitment from Tri-Met. That commitment does not exist for the
lease of the site and Tri-Met wishes to avoid condemnation. The Transit Center
is critical to the implementation of the Transit Development Program in Tigard.
Careful consideration must be given to the attraction of undesirable park and
riders to such a facility if an alternative parking location cannot be found.
The park and ride lot is important in providing transit services to low
density, unserved areas south and west of Tigard. Tri-Met will make every
effort to coordinate activities with the City of Tigard as these projects
are planned and implemented. Tri-Met is committed to these service improvements
within its financial resources. Implementation of these improvements, however,
willalso require some commitment from citizens and local governments.
i
I
-g-
1
Fare Structure
of Current rare Khc:uunended "• Pnss
Kirters stncctur[ Fare Strnchtre Incn•;tse Diccnuut 1)iccuunt
Regular Service Fares
f3,nse Adult Cn h 24 els 55c 2 ",
� �iC )5„
7,nne:�to["arcle�sstic�uare 2� $1( $i` 1:1"t',
CS) ill sEtl'aae $2r 25'v, 'lis
ol
ll P;rs I1 $ZU tl
Student Cash X12
Student Pass 61Z
15 101:
f ionor,�d Citizens `Free loc Fr(?(, t)
t5C 15C
Mentally Retmdr!d - I',
45C (15C o�iC,'75C '�2"
Premium Service F 5 ireless quttrc Free free e\cept (?
3-7 PM
Vancouver-Portland Fares
(Vv agreement)
r S5c l3'
Clartc Crxm1�to i`,rvnlown Portland 7.tC 55: (27`u,l
All nnn d„wnN>v;n trips 5C
Vancouvot Pass
$27 $:;t1 4'„ $6 12'�,
Tri-Met Fare History Current
Dollars
Real 1970
Dollars
$.40l •A` 6 N^ �'
r
1
30 _
�.�
s
1
10
FT
(j---------
7:3
71 72
t) 74 75 76 77 _78 79
Fiscal Year
Over the years. discount fares for monthly pass users', for senior citizens, and for
students have been successful in attracting ridership. But their effect on the average
fare has been to keep it about the same level (34C) in 1979 as it was in 1970,despite
increases in the cash fare.
TRI-COUNTY
METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT
OF OREGON
CN&'n
9
4012 SE 17th AVENUE
PORTLAND,OREGON 97202
TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
As 1980 begins, there are almost 60,000 more people riding the bus ever_ day than
there were at the beginning of 1975. Ridership growth has averaged 10.8% over
the last five years, and Tri-Met has made a number of capital investments both to
encourage and to accommodate the growing demand for transit--new buses, transit
centers, modern, more efficient garages, and the Portland Mall.
WHAT IS THE TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN?
The Transit Development Plan looks ahead to the next five years, mindful of the
demands for more transit in the face of energy shortages and environmental concerns.
It is a plan to chart the course of transit in the 1980s, a plan to meet the rider-
ship demands presented by the rapidly increasing costs of private transportation.
The Plan is the result of months of analyses of projections for ridership, revenue,
' operating costs and capital investments for the next five years. It is an:effort
to determine how'much transit service the community will need through 1985 and
`what it will cost to meet the need;
It outlines systematic service improvements to enable Tri-Met to continue its
tradition of keeping up with the demand .for transit. Keeping up with demand means
more buses, more transit centers, more hours of bus operation.
If the`recommendations ,of the plan are carried out, Tri-Met will be able to carry
over 80,000 more people daily in 1985 than it does today.; Growth areas in the tri-
counties--in Clackamas County and the Southwest suburbs--will .gain adequate bus
service. Transit access to;job sites will improve, instead of:deteriorating.
WHAT DOES IT COST?
More than we can pay from present sources for funding transit. Even with a ten
cent fare increase in 1980 and five-cent increase in each ensuing year, expenses
will begin to exceed revenues by 1983. By 1983, an additional $20 million--over
and above money collected from fares, from the employer payroll tax and from sta'_",
and federal assistance--will be required to maintain an adequate level of serv 'ce.
The $20 million a year is too;great a shortfall to ask fare-paying passengers to
make up. The Tri-Met Board is investigating sources of tax revenue to make, up this
deficit' a ensure the continued vitality of the transit system after 1983.
k
i
`
f
p
- 2 -
WHAT CAN WE AFFORD?
With a ten-cent fare increase in 1980 and annual five-cent increases thereafter,
but no additional money from new sources, Tri-Met can just squeak by financially
and be able to accommodate another 40,000 riders per day in 1985. This is an
average annual growth rate of four percent--less than half that experienced in
the last five years. Service improvements would involve only the minimum changes
in the bus system necessary to accommodate the 8anfield Light Rail line. There
would be little change in service elsewhere. And, by 1985, transit service would
be woefully inadequate to meet the community's needs.
PA 1/80
i
a
d...... ........
ai
..a (J) cn
00
�a%
cc
4
Ch
Ul
ch
o � a
`2
Jh-
6"9 4 u R
d i _
{
f
~ F,
f
7
a
1
cap cap � c
WSW
Y1d r
cn
u5 un ch
y y s. U QS
aws a,� O ��y wap b Q O
st;
� '� Oi :r � � � � •� � to y .�0
• y;LJ
v =�
4
5
a
o �
G,J
0
MOON ® >
CL
G
w m
axmc
m z
gPi
1•.
4
rN i
f
0
too s �
o 0
cn "' w va
o o�
1
m a LZ 'a
xz
MIN
l
3
La ,�
C7
Co
�yJOu
® !ntz
CN
ch
sy e
w
Z' cn
y
cV
or
9;
f
- o
1
d
tm
im �
ownZ8 j
mm
Er-
UB: x U U U
C-3 c M
f e e
® O
OEM=
RIM i
"' a
-------------
Transit Service
Summary Comparison
1985 1985
Existing Major
Current Service Service
System Commitments Improvements
Riders(.(annual) 40.1 Million 52.5 million 65.6 million
Capacity(annual
passenger miles) 1.14 billion 1.76 billion 2.20 billion
Service Coverage
Increase -- little change several areas
added
Service Frequency
Improved East Side only most service
unproved
Transit Centers/ 3 5 18
1,000 Jobs reached within
45 minutes from:
Downtown 309, 290 318
Gateway 68 222 222
z.'ioyd Center 210 236 280
Gresham .27 119 119 '
Beaverton 44 43 158
Tigard 21 18 44
Lake Oswego 118 115 133
Milwaukie 34 45 87
Clackamas Town
Center 2 48 85
E:
r
E
F
I
Financial Summary Comparison
Fiscal Year 1935
1985 1985
Existing Major
Service Service
Commitments improvements
Riders 52.5 million 66.6 million
Revenues (Millions of Dollars)
$ 29.5 S 40.2
Fares
Payroll Tax 51.6 51.6
Federal Operating 9.0 9.0 e
Miscellaneous 2.2 2.2
Federal Capital 16.0 22.1
State Capital 0 2.7
New Revenue 0 21.6
Total $108.3 $149.4
Operating Costs (Millions of Dollars)
Bus $79.5 $110.8
Light Rail Transit 5.0 5.0
Special Needs Program' 3.1 3.T
Total $87.6 $118.9
Capital Costs (Millions of Dollars
Bus (Vehicles and Facilities) $21.1 $29.2
Light Rail Transit 0 0
Total $21.1 $29.2
includes maintenance of accessibility devices.
t `
x
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OF
FIVE-YEAR TRANSIT
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Tri-Met
January 20, 1980
TABLE OF CONTENTS
P.1
I. Overview
p.3
II. Recommended Service plan
p.3
A. Assessment of Improvements p.4
B. Major Service Improvements p,6
C. Equipment and Resources Required
P.8
III. Existing Service Commitments
P.10
TV. Capital and Operating projections
Figure 1 Fleet Composition x,.13 E
Table 1 Five-Year Capital Cosi ed
Table 7_ Five-Year Financial Forecast (RecommendCommmtments)nts) p.14
Table 3 Five-Year Financial Forecast (Existing
V. 1990 Goals and Recommended 1985 Objectives
,.15 '
{
I. OVERVIEW
This document summarizes Tri-Mot's proposed Five-Year Transit Development
Plan (TDP) . Six months of analyses went into developing this plan for
Tri-Met to meet its responsibility to the Region through 1985.
Since 1975, regional transportation policy has placed increasing reliance
on transit to absorb the growth in travel formerly accommodated by new
roadways. The demands on transit become even more pressing in view of
the challenges of the 1980s: energy shortages and environmental constraints
accompanied by increasing demands for transit. This new pressure was al-
ready evident during the last six months of 1979, when Tri-Met's ridership
averaged 18 percent above 1978 levels.
In 1977, the Tri-Met Board of Directors adopted Goals for 1990 that pro-
vide the policy direction for developing the transit system through the
end of this decade. The objectives of the TDP listed on page 15 are consistent
with the 1990 goals. The TDP recommends systematic service improvements :to
put Tri-Met on target toward meeting those goals. However, the financial
forecast in Table 2 shows that current revenue sources are inadequate to
support these service improvements through 1985. Expenditures begin to
exceed revenues by 1983, when an additional $20 million per year is re-
quired to maintain growth.
The recommendation, then, raises a fundamental policy question. Should Tri-
Met _continue its tradition of service adequate to meet the responsibility
regional transportation policy has placed upon transit, acknowledging the
necessity of securing new financial resources to support service improvements
that respond to the transportation needs of the Region? Or, should Tri-Met
program only a growth rate that can be supported by present, certain funding
sources,` acknowledging that, while fares will continue to increase, service
will be inadequate to meet the community's needs and the 1990 goals will have
to be revised?'
The Transit Development Plan recommends a system that:
* will meet an 'average annual ridership increase of 11 percent,
accommodating 232.000 average daily riders in 1985.
* will increase the fleet to 747 standard buses, 117 articulated'
buses and 26 light rail vehicles by 1985.;
* will require an operating budget of $119 million in 1985.
* will improve the frequency of transit service, especially in
east Portland; will provide new routes in East Multnomah County,
a fully developed timed-transfer service in Clackamas County,
3 Southwest Portland and the suburbs in laashington County; will '
increase direct accessibility in downtown Portland; trill include,
the option of using trolley buses on five major lines.
-1-
* will develop the infrastructure of vehicles and facilities
to support a Westside transitway in the late 19805.
For purposes of comparison, the TDP has analyzed the growth in transit
service that could be supported by projected fare increases and the fore-
seeable growth in Tri-Met's present major revenue source, the payroll tax.
This level of growth would provide no new service beyond commitments Tri-
Met has already made. Projections indicate it:
* will meet an average annual ridership increase of 4 percent,
accommodating 183,000 average riders in 1985.
* will increase the fleet to 490 standard buses, 117 articulated
buses and 26 light rail vehicles by 1985.
* will require an operating budget of $88 million in 1985.
* will improve east Portland service only to the degree necessary
to support the Banfield Light flail line, with new lines in
East Multnomah County, and two new lines from Milwaukie and
Clackamas Town Center.
* will not develop the feeder bus infrastructure necessary
to support a transitway on the Westside.
A
-2
II. RECOMMENDED SERVICE PIAN
A. Assessment of Improvements
The Major Service Improvements alternative will expand the Tri-Met fleet to
857 buses. Of these, 117 will be more efficient articulated buses. This
bus fleet, plus the LRT system, will almost double transit capacity by 1985,
and will serve about 232,000 average weekday riders. This represents an
average annual growth of about 11 percent, which is still below the 18 per-
cent ridership growth experienced over the last six months. This system
comes closer to meeting anticipated transit travel demand, which, at current
growth rates, could exceed 300,000 daily riders by 1985. Moreover, the re-
commended system will be more productive. The longer articulated buses will
carry 50 percent more passengers per labor unit. Consequently, by 1985 these
vehicles can carry the same number of passengers for about $2 million less
(per year) than an equivalent number of standard buses. Light rail transit
will carry up to 300 percent more passengers per labor unit than standard
buses, producing even greater efficiencies.
The recommended alternative will provide greater service capacity, but what
about accessibility to new areas or areas with presently inadequate service?
A comparison of 1977 and 1985 transit travel times reflects not only the design
of existing and future transit networks, but highway improvements and regional
travel demand growth as well . Between 1977 and 1985, it is expected that
population will increase more than 20 percent, travel delay will increase an
average of 25 percent, and average highway speeds will decrease 7.5 percent.
These changes will have a significant impact on the performance of a future
transit system. Thus, if Tri-Met continued to operate the same service in
1985 as today, transit accessibility to 'jobs and shopping would actually become
worse, due to slowing traffic.
To compensate for deteriorating traffic conditions, the Major Service ,Improve-
ments alternative proposes to reorient transit service. Local routes will
become shorter and will focus on transit centers, which in ;turn will connect to
`fewer (but faster) trunk slines ;to carry the longer trips. Most service would
become more frequent, and >transfer times would be reduced to fiveminutes or
less where possible. A summary comparison of the Major Service Improvements
recommendation to the existing system shows that the amount of employment
reachable by transit (within 45 minutes) improves substantially.
-3-
1 .
loom
1
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT ACCESSIBLE BY TRANSIT
WITHIN 45 MINUTES IN 1985
(thousands of jobs)
CURRENT MAJOR SERVICE
FROM SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS
4 318
Downtown Portland 27 222
Gateway 62
188 280
Lloyd Center 22 85
Gresham 36
36 158
Beaverton 44
Tigard lI
92 133
Lake Oswego1 19 41
Oregon City 31
31 87
Milwaukie 85
Clackamas Town Center 1
In addition to providing more capacity and more frequent service, the
Major Service Improvements alternative will serve most areas within the
urbanized area not now served. These include: Towle Road, Roberts and
Palmquist in Gresham; Stark Street and Troutdale Road in Gresham; Sandy
Boulevard and Columbia Boulevard in Northeast Portland; Cornell and Thompson
in Northwest Portland; Patton Road and Scholls Ferry Road in West Portland;
Jenkins, Baseline, and 216th in Washington County; 121st and Scholls Ferry
in Beaverton; and 112th, Mt. Scott and 92nd in Happy
B. Major Service Improvements
In order to provide service for an
anticimends pated average annuof al ridership
iders ip
growth of 11 percent, Tri-Mete
Major
Service Improvements" alternative.
This alternative is a fairly substantial change from the existing system.
With full implementation, the 1985 system will look like this; In East-
With full
and East MultPortlanduandsGresham.the North�Southegrid�service
trunk line. service between
is provided, connecting to most of the LR7T stations. In other areas of the
rtlan , or
Region, trunk bus lines connector transstownnleneswith connectntowthe®trunkdlines
other transit centers. Local
at the transitocentershe andmto tent possible, local-to-trunklpmneservice,at
generators.
these transit centers is synchronized to minimize waiting time between
transfers
-4-
}
Summary of Service Changes
1 .. Eastside Portland. The Banfield LRT line provides trunk service between
downtown Portland area and the Gateway station. Other LRT stations are
provided at the Coliseum, Union-Grand, Lloyd Center, Hollywood, 60th,
and 82nd. North/South crosstown lines connect to all LRT stations.
Expanded East/West crosstown service is provided in North and Northeast
Portland. Bus trunk service is provided from downtown Portland to
Vancouver via interstate Avenue, to Parkrose via Sandy Boulevard, to
Lents via Hawthorne and Foster, and to Gresham via Division. North/South
trunk service is provided via Union-Grand, 11th-12th, and 1-205. Transit
centers will be located at Vancouver, Hollywood, Lloyd Center, Lents,
and Gateway.
2. East Multn2EIL County The Banfield LRT line provides trunk service
between the Gateway station and Gresham. North/South crosstown service
is provided along 102nd, 122nd, 148th, and 181st Avenues. New cross-
town lines are provided between Gresham and Fairview, Gresham and Wood
Village, and Troutdale and Gresham. New service is provided along
Sandy Boulevard between 133rd and Fairview, and to some of the new re-
sidential areas of Gresham. Transit centers will be located at Gresham
Hospital station, East Vancouver, and Gateway.
3. Milwaukie-Oregon City• Bus trunk lines operate on McLoughlin Boulevard
to Oregon City via Railroad Avenue to Clackamas Town Center. Non-radial
trunk routes connect Vancouver and Oregon City via I-205, and Clackamas
Town Center with Burlingame via Milwaukie and the Bellwood Bridge.
Transit centers are located in Milwaukie, Clackamas Town Center, and
Oregon City. New East/West local lines connecting McLaughlin and 1-205
operate between Milwaukie and Oregon City.
4. Southwest Portland and Suburbs. Service is provided by a timed-transfer
system similar to the Westside service. Bus trunk lines operate on
Macadam to Lake Oswego, ,Barbur Boulevard to Tigard, and Canyon Road and
Scholls Ferry Road to Tigard via Sylvan and Washington Square. Transit
centers are located in Lake Oswego, Tigard, Tualatin, Washington Square,
and Burlingame. New feeder routes provide service to residential and
industrial areas in Tigard., Tualatin and Lake Oswego. Most lines in this
area will be changed.
5. West Portland and Suburbs. Some new lines will be .added. Otherwise,
no major changes from the 1980 Westside service are envisioned.
6.' Downtown Portland. Extensive changes in bus routes in the downtown are ,
proposed. The Transit Mail (5th-6th Avenues) and the LRT lines (1st
Avenue, Morrison-Yamhill Streets) provide the backbone of the transit
system in the downtown. New service would be provided on 2nd-3rd Avenues,
loth--llth Avenues, 'Star -Oak Streets, Salmon-Washington Streets, and the
South Auditorium area, significantly increasing accessibility.
7. Special Needs Transportation. All new buses acquired in the future will
be accessible to handicapped and elderly. To assist those who cannot
use the fixed-route bus system, Tri-Met will continue to support demand
responsive service by coordinating and partially ,funding these services
provided by 'various other agencies.
-5-
a
I
I
8. Ridesharing. The Major Service Improvements alternative will intensify
efforts to increase the use of carpooling, buspooling, and vanpooling.
This program will include the following services: (1 ) Transportation
consulting to employers and other- organizations; (2) an automated carpool
matching program; (3) carpool incentives; (4) an expanded park-and-ride
program; (5) market research to better assess needs; and (6) regional
promotion through mass media.
9. Trolley Bus Option. Tri-Met recommends that five of the most heavily
used routes in the Major Improvements alternative be implemented using
electric trolley buses, instead of diesel buses: NW 21st Avenue, NW 23rd
Avenue, Hawthorne/Foster, Hawthorne/52nd Avenue, Belmont (Mt. Tabor) . This
small trolley bus starter system will improve energy efficiency, operating
effectiveness, and environmental (air quality, noise) impacts of future
bus service. The additional capital cost of this initial 40-vehicle system
is approximately $10 million, and is contingent upon federal funding
availability.
10. Westside Transitwa . The Major Service Improvements alternative will
have in place the vehicles, facilities, and financial infrastructure to
support a Westside Transitway corridor in the late 1980s (about 1988) ,
should a major transit facility be constructed there.
C. Equipment and Resources Required
The new,equipment needed to provide the service envisioned in the major
service expansion proposal will nearly double the fleet's capacity and
operating ability, but would outpace the system's present ability to meet
the new costs of operation, even when the 'normal growth of the fare and
the employers`' payroll tax is taken into consideration. A new and addition—
al source of ongoing revenue for operating purposes would have to be found,
amounting to about $20 million a year after 1983.
The "Major Service improvements" recommendation will expand fleet capacity
_ to 747 standard buses, 117 articulated (60-foot) buses, plus 26 LRT vehicles,
and means an annualoperation budget (including' inflation) <of $119 million
by 1985.
This represents an 80 percentincreaseof fleet capacity over today's levels
(`see Figure 1) . It' also assumes that presentfinancialsources will more
than double due to growth and inflation, but that a `sho"rtfall of $20 million
a year will begin to develop during 1983.
To support this expanded fleet, Tri-Met will require 300 passenger shelters,
18 transit (transfer) centers, a third fully equipped operations and main
-
tenance 'base, and supporting equipment. Support equipment and facilities
are included in capital 'costs. Table l summarizes the capital costs and
sources of capital 'funding required to support this system.
-6-
ts
A five-year financial forecast of the Major vely Service r�esentsmanbudgetalternative
fore-
is presented in Table 2. This table effectively l� p
cast "balance sheet" for Tri-Met over the next five fiscal years. The
forecast is based on a gradual declineiannualatioIn(to 8 ra ,
percent
by 198.
and modest employment growth (2 per
cent ip is
assumed to increase in direct proportion to the transit system capacity.
These
These projections also assume that cash 'fares will be increased by
0t in
April , 1980, and will increase by 5o every April thereafter. These fare
n a
schedules will support theen2 ae50epercent increasnt fare e intfares io aover sthe anext
continuing goal and repres from fares will increase
five years. Due to increasing ridership, revenues
by 150 percent by 1985.
Table 2 shows that Tri-Met can afford to build and operate the Major
Service Improvements talternativeteoolocal match forh FY 1capital83 hthe improvenents. Beyond
assistance from the State approximately
FY 1983, Tri-Met would require a new operating revenue source of app
$20 million per year (in 1983 dollars) in order to continue to expand
service to the 1985 levels recommended.
Tri-Met would have to seek a public source for the additional revenues,
since the amounts needed are far greater than could be realized through any
reasonable fare increase. These additional funds could be sought in the
form of additional subsidies from the State or Federal government, or
through further utilization of Tri-Met's present taxing authority. It
should be noted that Tri-Met would bear the responsibility for securing the
funding of any possible Westside Transitway improvement. Although the
operating costs would not need to be met until after 1985, a regional dec-
ision toconstructa Westside facility would mean that Tri-Met would have to
provide additional capital funding before 1985. It could look to the State .
ources to provide local
and local governments as well as to its own res
match for what would largely be a Federally funded project.
The service expansion program has been phased so that, if the new operating
revenues are notforthcomingafter FY 1983, Tri-Met can continue to operate
the 1983 level of service without revoking any service already committed
but growth would come to a halt. In other words, under these financial con-
ditions, the amount of transit service would "level off" in 1983 and there
would be no significant expansion until light rail transit came on line•in
FY 1985. The new buses scheduled for purchase in FY 1984 and FY 1985 would
still The acquired but would be used only to replace `ol.der buses and not to
expand service. No older buses would be repowered after FY 1983, and
construction of transit centers and other facilities would be curtailed.
Should trolley bus service be implemented in FY 1985, the associated cap-
ital costs '(buses, overhead, all electrical wiring and equipment) would
have to be added into the FY 1984 and FY 1985 budget. The total local
Table 2 shows that the cash flow during
match would be about $2 million.
this,period `could not easily absorb even ane-half this amount. Therefore,
Tri-Met would most likely seek special assistance for funding the Trolley
Bus project.
-7-
1
III, EXISTING SERVICE COMMITMENTS
This alternative represents a "fallback position" for Tri-Met in transit
improvements over the next five years. That is, with no additional local
revenue sources, this is what Tri-Met can achieve with the financial
resources it now has.*
These commitments would increase Tri-Met fleet size to 490 standard coaches,
117 articulated buses, and 26 light rail vehicles, serving 183,000 passengers
a day by 1985 (see Table 3). This will serve an average ridership increase of
four percent per year.
The only changes made to the transit system between today and 1985 are:
(1 ) the opening of the Banfield Light Rail line; (2) changes to the bus
system necessary to support the LRT service; and (3) changes in the Mil-
waukie area necessary to serve the Clackamas Town Center.
Summary of Service Changes:
1 . Eastside Portland. The Banfield LRT line would provide trunk service
between downtown Portland and the Gateway station. No major restructuring
in service is envisioned, except to re-route existing bus lines to the LRT
stations. Some operating cost savings may be achieved by terminating some
lines at the stations that now travel to the downtown.
2. East Multnomah County. The Banfield LRT line would provide trunk service
between the Gateway station and the Gresham-Cleveland station. Other
stations include 102nd, 122nd, 148th, -162nd, 172nd, 181st (Rockwood),
191st, Gresham-City Hall , Hospital station, and Cleveland station.
North-south feeder service is provided along,102nd, 122nd, 148th, and
181st Avenues. New ,crosstown lines are provided between Gresham and
Fairview, Gresham and`'Wood Village, and Troutdale and Gresham via Mt. Hood
Community College. New service is provided along Sandy Blvd. between 133rd
and`223rd, 'and to some of the new residential areas of Gresham.
< ; 3. Downtown Portland. Operation of LRT on Morrison and Yamhill Streets
requires the relocation of the five bus lines currently operating on these
two streets. New streets of operation in the downtown include Salmon,
Washington, Stark and Oak.
4. Milwaukie. The Clackamas Town Center will open in 1981 and include bus
transfer facilities and a park-and-ride lot. To 'serve the Town Center,
two lines are proposed from Milwaukie: one from East Multnomah County,
r and a north-south route on 82nd Avenue. Coordinated transfers between
these lines will be provided at the Town Center.
* Employer Payroll Tax, fares, Federal assistance, and miscellaneous (ad-
vertising, interest, etc.)
-8-
l
5. Paratransit. The Ridesharing and Special Needs Transportation programs
would continue at about the same level as today, except that Tri-Met
would phase into a coordinating role for special needs door-to-door
service, rather than the direct operations (LIFT) in effect now.
6. Lon Range Implications.
The rate of service expansion implicit to this
alternative will probably not' support development of another major transit-
way corridor at least until after 1990. Without a substantially expanded
velop the feeder-bus infrastructure necessary to
fleet, Tri-Met cannot de
ty transit system. And without State
bring the riders to the high-capaci
sfor capital expenditures
support for local match ire $b0 million (inflated dollars) necessary
, Tri-Met would be hard-
pressed to extract the ent
to match the $200 million federal cost of such a system.
i.
t
l
}
1
G.
-9-
OCR,
9-
IV. CAPITAL AND OPERATING PROJECTIONS
s
i
—10—
rl
i
{
Fleet Composition
Figure 1
- Leased Basis
:.. Tom Fleet Size In Cgall'd1+YnI _
Stanca[c Buses -
5
Standard:401 Suses Over 13 (ears Old
R Standard.401 Buses Over!3 Years Old
Repourered =
Standara'40'1 Buses Under 13 Yl Old
Arttcuiatzd,00')Buses -
L:gnt Raul Translc 'enlc:es
1000 a
I- it
900
800';
E = n
700
t �
F 1 ' S
_i
600.
E
AGO, , 5 r � ( 5 f �% � ✓//r, WN
/ ���/moi %'• ��`✓iii,%'��• l
400 i / ✓/" / // //. /� ;i/�j
,,�
3001
/• / rte=%� /�,�,% �-;�r
200
( Aft,'
100
di <
�% s' /�� li {( t i•C1 �tt�tF'({t
0197.8-79 .979-80 6980-5i :981 82 1982 83 184 1984-839S3-
a �
�11-
TABLE 1
FIVE YEAR CAPITAL COST u REVENUE SUMMARY
MAJOR SERVICE it"FROVCC ENTS :LTER';A.TIVE
t
In Thousand or Dollars *COSTS I� X ,
(Inflated) Federal State Tri ?et i
i
j Total II Share I Share Share Tota?
I
`IEHICLES I I
Bus (and Bus Support) i 90,253
68,"89 0,625 i 13,V38
29,954 ! 24,472 j 4,762t 720
Ln' `� �5,ri 207
FACILITIES
26,803 i' 19,775 ! 2,515 4,613 I
Bus (and Bus Related) i II j
�1 86,996 116,930 2,555
LRT � 106,480 I
I 15133,283
EQU IFP"ENT
II � I 2,368 '
Bus (and Bus Related) 15,098 12,313 i 1,412 1
�S '15,398
TOTALS ``SZ69,538 5211,7.9 (S 34,1a; i ��,6
l
*Figures shown are a surnation
o` capital costs/revenues in (inflated)
current dollars r`rcm Jul;/,' 19 0
1 Qn y
through lure,
_ _12_
1
12/31/79
TABLE
TRI-i?ET FINA;CIAL FORECAST
MAJOR SERVICE MPROVENENTS ALTERt!ATIVE
1978-79 1979-80 1980-31 1981-82 x 1982-83 i 1983-34 1984-85
OPERATING STATISTICS 559/0 559/0 525/87 600/87 660/117 740/117
540/0
asks_ Std L rttG. -
--- --- 0 C 0 26_
-'-
u4t Vehic'2s --D.7_ 27.3 _ 30.8 37.0
en
c-1 tri es_(mtllions;_- ---- L13,.--. 2: _ 24 4_-_ -- ?90 2L200�
Rei °.irce.astles (r.illi.on�L_-- ��4C__. ]..184._1. C_ - 1,56020022 ?32
_---1'
125 139 146 161 180
ave, 'deeidy Pass
encers_(OOOi_ "
7 SOd__ _65%90e! 70/95 i�/1006 75J105c-
�asr F_ares_�eL - - - ai�__� -�-- --
?aa 18125 _5_20L27 2 0____�5 23/3 _ _5 24/32 529,'61c -
1:C92__ar.S_ 9n¢a-a]J]i -- 3=' 381436 _.41.41=- 4 _2c 5�/5^e 56i 596 59 51e
RE,/E i (530.0) 0a
j ,� 7i 15254 � 18 214 i 22,095 ,. 26.x03 32 617 42 235
F3 es --- 5 1 671 t-= 771 1.877 i 1,99Q _ 21109
Iisc�.Llaneous- 27 277 i 31,096 _34,327 i 38,68 42.524 46.777 5' 455 '
avroI1 Ta,x 44 6830 _ 7 240 ?.6l5 e.i35
- ,t ncera3 SS.LSt.__ r' 6 '- b 848 $g9
T hnical Demo. As i 634 ! 672 i 712 j 755 { 800 .
E..d.e�-�_-_�_ 5 =t . Z. °c i��2r 5! 7 .0 b +ni aiq
.TOTAL MON-r_APITAL REy IlES �� ' °
3,402 2,438 15.014 i 49,326 83,053 42,213 22,144
przral_Caoital assist.._ _ 436 i -- --50E-; 5 _ 2.734
°�aLe ;zpital Assts. j®,coo "�' 7 3] � 97,876 48,590 _2�,8Z8
SUBTOTAL CAP._RF`JENQES - - 0 0 0 0 20,000 2+,600
New Revenue Saurce-i`7)_._____._____-_.
; 0 _ - --
TOTAL REVENUES ui7 57,014 i 79,373 127 331 i.. 177 _.,333 158.616 19,397
CpE.R G COSTS (S000) i
5,�s Qoerazors-.,_ 22,081 ' 26 421 i 29,573 30 187 � 42;809 52, 46 02 354 ''
-- --..
!25191_�� 031`i 3,10 3�1Z'Uel &.Qi.1 6;881 8,253) 8 643 y 37O liT 427 13;e83 L6 ZSS '
+a r enance & Support __ - --- 943 11 037_;_._ 12�25I __136598------
15,0
c, in.i:strative & General_ _8.070____ 8,958 _,___ G,__ __ x -
TrahsGortation dmin.s-__..:.: 2,643 ' 4,076_' 4,662 5 4 - _63712 _-_8 293 -9 869
--. 0 0" ti 0 0 110 600 F 030
'RT Operations. 1 -- - 128
Sstecial deeds Transportation. 495 610 1,131 2 007 2 '23 2 596
„_-.r.L � 42-36"j o 00 E�i.�68 i 8 73 40o y7,3'0 -.118 9?9 '
1� OP. COSTS-_ i - ----- - -
C�01 AL COSTS (SOOO)
62 _ 0 403 23,479 15,516 24,571 21,234
hicles (Bus & Supporter- .--3-455 -z,16$ x,110 ' -3-� 4,96$ 8.$35 _ 0,0'3
ities (BUS).-- _--T - ----,
-- - -
72
_-cEquiprent -___ ',:499 ' 0€4 7,3 2 1'0$��-- `c5 1,38 c
X732" oi _
774
5 3707AL (Bus) _ -- 0 0 2.930 0 19.584 7,440 0 Vehicles (LRT) 351 7,492 28,563 581537 li, $- ^
ac res (LRT) -
U �Tn� {L„!) :�. 851 10422 , 28.5x13_ ZQ 121 _19 322-_ 0-_
"�L n°Iir COSTS x,516.. _Sr^83 _ 19,487_ 63�1Z6_��71 54,�0s---29-192.r
- 641 1,275 2,818 - 2 703 - 5,743 7.2N 1 225
E u1.+�C I CASH
5,517 6.793 9,611 `: 6,858 1,114 8,338
5.517 5,793 9,611 0 853 1 114 8 �8 9 61
_ crD 'G 'rORK ; C�r:T:L - (r��08�( (6,282) 1 {7>032); (7,782) 18,532) (9,282) (10,0'62)
:!ORY,>NG CAPITAL REQD. ()
i
TABLE 's 12/31/79
TRI-h1 ET FINANCIAL FORECAST
E:{ISTINC SE^VICE CO:1rTv-,P,%T5 ALTERNATIVE
1978-79 1979-80 ! 1980-31 1981-82 1982-83_ 11983-84 19E4•-85_
8
OPERATING STATISTICS
E40/0 559/0 559/0 440/37 515/87 490/117 190/!17
LR Eleni 'es_ __0 ---0 0 0 - 0 0 - �O- -
e isle i les (mill ions 22,7_1.5_ -21 5_ '1 5 21.9 21 9 2"s.5
lace ^files_.... m�llions�.-_-1,140__-• 1 0- 1,180.----1 ��5 _ 1,383 _1_33 1,760 _
Ove. ::eekcy Passencers(OOO� 125 138 142 _ 147 - 157 _ 163 _,-' 133
Casn Fares 'c 45 65c 55 75c _; 60/80c __ 65/SOc 0/�5 T5ii00c / 70c
s fS}_ -- - 91 20 518/25 _$20/27 S22%30 S23/31y 1
t� 2_`dt e5__1a vwallhi 3hl arc 38/43c _� 474 %52c 52%55c 56/54c 59/59
REVENUES (5000)
Fares__._ 12,457--t 15,0481,--1-7,-732 201121_ 23,.^31 2.6,242 _. 129 64 _
ilcellnneous 71 771 1 1,877 1,990 2,109 2 235
Pavroll Tax 7 96 34,827 1 38,658 i 42,524 46,777 � c. -
Feder I Qpe"aLina ss-LSt 1-5,235- 6.444 5,330 7,240 7.675 3.136
Federal TechnicaliDamo. Assist. 634 I 672. 712 755 800 343 849
a1j5 r (JON-CAPITAL REV'ctiUES r/a I 5°o I- �� i
F4der41_ca ital Assist. 3,402 c,.438 15,014_ 86,982_ _Z9,762 37.298 16.032
- 436 604 2 3G1 :.* 4,542 12,420 * 3;074 0
State Capital Assist.
SUI TAL_ CAP. REVENUES _� ~ I__, �- 7 ,� ' -111 52y_-f . 92,1c_2 y0,a7c. _ _1oyQ-
!ew_Revenue Source-(�- -- 0- 0 i 0 I 0-;! 0 - -0'-'
TOTAL REVENUES j rl'517 1-57-FOR ---� 78.891 111Q.761ii 168.157 124 23108,221_
OP RA,.:;G COSTS ($000)
22,08 1 26,42 1 29,578---32,454 --S_3$7,42�L048- 40,558 1103,,302
Ooaratrs
qel:S » s - T,9 T97 3 1= 4,716
nterance & SupporB15X59 Ez355 17
07-- 796
_ _Generalr yin s rative3
13,315-
- r3nsrorttion�Em�n..,--' �43 rt 4,662 5,120
-- �i- i 0 - 0 - - ' 1 56uU °
S ec.aL..ae_as._TranspottaSiotL °� 1,131._1 2_007 2.323 -2�6?5_13 1?8'
707AL OP. COSTS 42,361 ! 50,793 56,323 61,630 " 69,170 76,302 87,683
CAP AL COSTS (SOOO)
Vehicles_(Bus._&_Supgartl 62 i 0 403 �_ 27,282 14,316 23,319 -__20,041
F _ 3.9554 E6L -' T 1� -t�2Z 9G� - 3 255 3Tfi�
Equipment 499 1 564 7.352• 1,,080 5.066
SUBTOTAL (Bus) x.516 S
d 732 3 060_ _ 30�49G; ciTo%'y
__.-_.l-....._1_.
1=_aides (LRT) 0 0 2,930 0 19,5E4 7,440,
--�'-
-acil :ties`(LRT) m_0 851 7,492 28,563 58'.537 11 383 J
S,5,0T,^L_y,L."NT n 851
TO'A'_ Cr?;TnL COSTS _l 016 X5,583 S?,487 59,053 18,403 ?-,757-
-- - -
G..AI GI CASH 4,641 !,232 9!E 5011 475 .19.
876 I 5.517 6,749 9,830 8,912 -9,506 9 931'
iG tjORK,'Z CAPITAL 5 r1 ,6,749 9,330 8,912 9,506 c °81 a 462
_. _
r ° i7.032)_ l7,782) 8,532) '9 282! f10,U32)
WORKING CAPITAL REE1D. (
� ) L�B�.S._3".)__. (6,2G2}
*includes only Banfield'Transitway Pr04ect fards comnitted in 1979.
i
� 1
{
V. 1990 Goals
The Tri-Met Board of Directors in 1977 adopted Goals for 1990 which con
si:itute the agency's commitment to the region. These goals are:
1. Develop a transit system which provides travelers with an attractive
alternative to the private automobile.
2. Improve productivity within the agency.
3. Absorb sufficient travel demand to relieve constraints on the environment
caused by the automobile.
4. Maximize energy conservation and efficiency in the actual design and
operation of the transit system.
5. Encourage growth patterns which support efficient transit.
6. Improve mobility for the transportation disadvantaged.
s
7. Develop a transit financing program to provide the capital and operating
funds required through 1990.
Proposed 1985 Objectives_
1. Transportation Service: Increase transit ridership to at least 232,000
passengers per weekdayby 1985; initiate light rai transit service from
Gresham to Portland with supporting feeder bus service, parks-and-ride
facilities, and transfer stations; monitor and refine westside timed-
transfer service and implement timed-transfer systems in other app-
ropriate sectors of the region; implement north-south service as soon
as possible in East Portland and East Multnomah County by phasing in
as the light rail project advances; provideimproved coverage and
connectivity in Clackamas County in conjunction with the opening of
Clackamas Town 'Center, and 'provide phased expansion from this base; im-
prove access to industrial areas; improve transit coverage within downtown
Portland; develop, with Vancouver Transit System, improved transit`acc-
essibility across the Columbia River; and increase Carpool use to ten
percent of commuting population.
2. productivity: Maximize use of part-time drivers for most cost-effective
service response to increased peak capacity demand vs. lesser off-peak
demand; promote-off-peak riding to improve productivity of existing ser
vice investments; maximize efficiency of Labor through continued evaluation
of transit technologies relating to propulsion, vehicles, passenger mon-
itoring, fare collection, and transit information; implement approved
capital projects which maximize productivity and which are consistent
with approved service level alternative; implement administrative im-
provements for maximum mangement information and control (e.g. , improved
data collection, system analysis procedures,' etc.) .
-15-
ntal
acts as a
3 Environmental : CspeCificeservoiceeobjectives; providepriority
public information
<, and implements P
and obtain citizen response on all proposed service projects; cooperate9
ams
with and participate in State Department of Environmental Quality p
for improved air quality.
4. Ener : Expand Rideshare (Carpool/Vanpool) Program to provide increased
public awareness and partticipationithrooughoutlates ohtransportatione District; paondti he
City of Portland Energy / conservation a priority in
consistent with Tri-Mat goals; consider energy
ice objectives, and in evaluating alternative
planning specific sery
technologies.
5. Mobility Disadvantaged
requirements of Section 50 De4veofoPh�e�ehabtllitationtAct ofion 1973;r
1973� procureg
wheel chair accessible equipment on all new transit buses and light rail
vehicles purchased so that at least 35 percent of the fleet is accessible
or for Tri
by 1985; ensure that all new nvideiinterimnaccessibleytransportation, as
are wheelchair accessible; pr
direct provider and/or service contractor, to maximum extent possib
Tri-Net's
within existing resources and to a minimum of two percent of
Section 5 funds.
6. Development and .and ommentsetoeimprove prroposedw local ndevelopmentspatternslans land
aso
render constructive co
that they may be most efficiently served by transit; sustain mutua
participation with Metropolitan Service District (Metro) staff in con-
currently developing the Long-RangeRegional
Developments Program o(TOP)r; cooperate
with the continuing Five-Year
with other agencies in evaluating merits of major transit corridors, and
program corridor projects for implementation if justified.
7. Financing: Maintain operating revenue at a minimum of 32 percent of
operating costs by (a) implementing incremental fare increases as demanded
by ;inflationarilfactors, and (b) continuing line-by-line
ananal ses and
maintarefine
refinements for increasing system productivity;
projection operating and the issueaof thecoststransits at nandvitsUbenefit
ture
service levels; address
to the greater community in order that the public understand thee funding neenew
for funding mechanisms to meet those costs; pursue
bus procurements and other "transit h;apital impt vemenwithts at atea ratepfat
least 50 percent of; the local
parti-
cipation in local roadway funding, and the State's traditional support
of public al match reiuirementPforumajorState
capitalcimprovementsthe
suchfunding
of the local match requirement
the;light 'rail local match.
t 16
of
t
Department of State Police
Ii1�Pi...iEC CONSENT PROGRAM
4Y :ti+o,AnYEM 222 SOUTH WEST PINE STREET, PORTLAND, OREGON 97204
April 11, 1980
Chief Robert E. Adams
Tigard Police Department
P.O. Box 23557
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Chapter 410, Oregon Laws 1979 amended ORS 487.815 by transferring from
the Department of Human Resources, aealth''Division, to the Department
of State Police responsibilities relating to the breath testing portion
of the Implied Consent Law.
In order to standardize this program, the Department has purchased,
with a Traffic Safety Grant, fifty-five new infrared breath testing
machines for agencies who currently do not have one. Because of the
purchase price agreement, it is necessary for us to receive your
present breath testing equipment , if any, as a trade-in. Otherwise
there is an additional cost of $150 not provided in the Traffic
Safety Grant.
We will also provide all agencies with the required equipment
certification, maintenance:and operators' training and certification.
After the new equipment is distributed and placed into service, it is'.
our intention to limit operators' training to this type of breath
testing equipment`. It is our desire to eventuallyhave only infrared
breath testing equipment in the State of Oregon.
Because of the exchange of equipment involved it will be necessary
for, governing officials to, complete the attached form and immediately,
return it to 107 Public Service Building, Salem, Oregon, 97310,
Attention: Captain Verbech. Installation of equipment and operator:''
training will be scheduled upon receipt of your 'signed agreement`. Vie
have already completed training and certifying 416 city and:county
police officers.
If you have, any questions concerning this program, please contact us at
107' Public Service Building, Salem, Oregon, 97310, telephone: 378-8192.
Sincerely,
John Pl'll . ms, Superintendent
By . d,
'mi'l E. 'Brandaw, Lieutenant Colonel
EEB:cjs
Enol.
d .•
OREGON STATE POLICE
INTOXILYZER AGREEh1ENT
The undersigned hereby agree to accept delivery of
the Intoxilyzer 4011-A from the Department of State
Police and will comply with the Following guidelines:
1. Title to the Intoxilyzer 4011-A will remain with
the State of Oregon.
2. The equipment will be available to all law enforce-
ment agencies.
S. The Department of State Police will certify and
maintain the equipment at no cost to the local
agency.
s
4. The Department of State Police will train law
enforcement officers on the operation of the
equipment at no cost to their agencies. Salary
of trainees will not be reimbursed.
It is agreed the Department of State Police may use
present breath testing equipment, if any, as a
trade-in on the new equipment .
City Manager/Mayor/County Commissioner Date
Chief of Police/Sheriff Date
Title (if necessary) .Trate
Title (if .necessary);; Date
City/County —
l
� p
a
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Staff Departments
FROM: Public Works Division
SUBJECT: Vacation of Southwest 100th Street
DATE: March 31, 1980
Attached is a request for a vacation of a street (see attached vicinity map).
Each City Department and other public service districts and affected utilities should
review and make written comments for City Council consideration on the April 28, 1980
regular meeting.
Space is provided for your comments.
ENGINEERING - Prefer to see connection of 'developed' SW 100th Avenue and SW
Highland Drive completed not vacated, since the more routes made
available for traffic the more distributed traffic will be.
SEWER-STREETS AND STORMDRAINAGE - If such is to be vacated, then a public ease-
ment need be created to facilitate maintenance capability there-
along for storm water (drainage) which originates northerly thereof.
PLANNING Do not vacate. Randall's Subdivision to be developed to the north
- soon. Street should be completed to Highland Drive. Who is making
this request?
FINANCE - Appears we will need this right-of-way for future development. I
am not very knowledgeable in this area but from the looks of the
map it seems thatforfurther expansion inithis area plus better
flow of traffic we might need to retain.
BUILDING - Will require street to avoid land locked property.
POLICE - Recommend that this vacation request be denied, emergency vehicle
access to this area is 'vital, and should be improved in the near-
future.
LIBRARY - No comment.
s
1
i
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CIT'r COUNCIL `
City of Tigard t
County of Washington
State of Oregon
--- ;.n`the Matter of the Vacation of lands
PETITION FOR AND CONSENT TO E.
described as: ,
VACATION OF REAL .PROPERTY 4
an extension of Southwest
100th Street. s
being the owners and inhabitants of the real property
We, the undersigned, do b respectfully represent:
these presents resp.-
described on the attached Schedule A, Y
1. That the said a
rea described on said Schedule A is within the
ty of Tigard
corporate boundaries of the Ci , County of Washington,
State of Oregon.
the area proposed to be vacated comprises no more than .10 acres•.
2. That signingthe
3. That the name, address and tax lot number of each person
ssaid signatures
petition appears after that person's signature and all of
are attached to this petition marked Schedule B.
ro arty
t the herein described
W H E R
E F 0 R E, Petitioners pray thap P
appropriate measures be forthwith
be vacated and request that all necessary and appro P ra arty.
Comm and completed for the vacation of said realproperty
hav e affixed their
N W I T (v E S S W H E R,E 0 F, th P
signatures.
i
mum
1
S�.W._INEZ STREET 7 i� S.W. MEZ _ST
1 19C
ILI
7
N{tXS>iLGYG'�.F�f'�.
MAF
z5
lit
SEE MAP 3 o 1000
2S I I I CC ' m 4,70,4c
� V
s -
\ V
m
RIC
\ 4
SEE MAP .
2S I IICB HIGHLAND
DRIV '�
s i
oov!EW o
' J
a
} V
SEE
2S I I1 CA
SEE Ms
2S I HE
" ANO OR/1,t �JN,Fs� Y
N G
t^h1AfiH L
rn' Stv SUr1MERE!ElD BR?/ M
w
O
SUMM£RC\ELS L7r,E !o=
DA yy J
44 �
7 0 w 8
i xr,
SEE MAPS ^.
i 2S I IICC