The URL can be used to link to this page

City Council Packet - 06/19/2001 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETIN0. JUNE 19, 2441 COUNCIL MEETING ILL NOT-BE H:%jeannieldocs%ccpkt2 MEN- h " Revised Revised June 15, 2001 x TIGARD CITY ~O'1fNL w` WORKSHOP N(EETING 3j7;dune 19, 2C01K;rfi•30 p mi+aY,: CITY OF TIGARD c ~Y~,;,l 3l 25Fr5W'~I~AL,BLi/D °Y F~r~~~}> > ,r ~~A,TIGiRD, ®R Sr97223 ; +r; . x PUBLIC NOTICE: Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 503-639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deao. Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments; and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead-time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date by calling: 503-639-4171, x309 (voice) or 503-684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - June 19, 2001 page 1 AGENDA TIGARD CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING June 19, 2001 6:30 PM 1. WORKSHOP MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications 8i Liaison Reports 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non Agenda Items 2. UPDATE ON TRI-MET a. Staff Report: Community Development Staff b. Council Discussion, Questions, Comments 3. UPDATE ON ANNEXATION a. Staff Report: Community Development Staff b. Council Discussion, Questions, Comments 4. RIGHT OF WAY AND SIDEWALK RESPONSIBILITY a. Staff Report: Public Works and Community Development Staff b. Council Discussion, Questions, Comments 5. UPDATE FROM THE NEW TIGARD LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE a. Staff Report: Library Staff b. Council Discussion, Questions, Comments 6. DISCUSSION OF CITY OF TIGARD'S 40"H BIRTHDAY CELEBRATION a. Staff Report: Administration Staff b. Council Discussion, Questions, Comments 7. UPDATE ON TIGARD'S PARTICIPATION IN THE INTERNATIONAL RESOURCE CITIES PROGRAM a. Staff Report: Administration Staff b. Council Discussion, Questions, Comments COUNCIL AGENDA - June 19, 2001 page 2 8. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 9. NON-AGENDA ITEMS 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council may go into Executive Session. If an Executive Session is called to order, the appropriate ORS citation will be announced identifying the applicable statue. All discussions are confidential and those present may disclose nothing from the Session. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend Executive Sessions, as provided by ORS 192.660(3), but must not disclose any information discussed. No Executive Session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision. Executive Sessions are closed to the public. 11. ADJOURNMENT 1 AokD M\CATHY\C CA\010619 PP. D OC COUNCIL AGENDA - June 19, 2001 page 3 AGENDA ITEM # a FOR AGENDA OF 6.19.01 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Update on Tri-Met issues. PREPARED BY: Julia Hajduk DEPT HEAD OK MGR OK UAL ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNC H - 21 Listen to the update on Tri-Met issues and provide staff with comments including prioritization of issues which will assist staff and Tri-Met in moving forward to prepare a transit action plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Discuss and provide feedback on development of a transit action plan. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City Council has raised concerns many times regarding the need for additional transit service and facilities in the City of Tigard. Several Council members and City staff met with Tri-Met staff and board members on April 19, 2001 to express the City's concerns and issues. At that meeting, the City requested information from Tri-Met. Tri-Met staff prepared detailed information on service and revenue, transit service and ridership, recent and future improvements, capital investments and Employer and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs and shared this information at a meeting with staff on May 24, 2001. Attached is a copy of the information provided to staff at this meeting. During discussion at the meeting, it became apparent that an action plan prioritizing needed improvements is necessary to show Tri-Met that the improvements are warranted. This will likely include partnerships and capital investments on the City's part to install necessary improvements such as sidewalks. The action plan would also need to include a timeframe/work plan for a Tri-Met and City partnership to attain these improvements. In order for staff and Tri-Met to begin to come up with a workable plan to meet the City's needs, it would help to first prioritize what populations are most critical to be served with transit upb -ades. The solutions vary greatly if we are targeting better service for employers, all residents, low income residents, inter-city, etc. Areas specifically mentioned by City Council members include: Bonita, Durham Road, 72nd, and the un-served areas on Bull Mountain. Identification of which areas are priority will aid in preparing a realistic plan that will eventually address all identified transit needs. In addition to service upgrade issues, any action plan will also need to identify and plan for facilities improvements including access to bus stops (needed sidewalk improvements, crossings, signalization, park and ride facilities, and bus shelters). Based upon Council's discussions and the draft Transportation System Plan (TSP), the following list attempts to prioritize transit improvements, recognizing that some improvements take longer to implement than others. Continued recognition of needed improvements is critical to insure that such needs are addressed in a timely fashion. 1. Commuter rail station in Tigard (with parking). 2. Service to under-served areas, including (in order of priority), Bonita Road, Durham Road, 72"d, and the unserved areas on Bull Mountain. 3. Transit amenities at major transit stops (shelters, information kiosks) with the Hall Blvd./Bonita Road stop being the first priority. City and Tri-Met to develop citywide prioritization list. 4. Improved pedestrian connections to transit facilities (sidewalks, crosswalks). City and Tri-Met to develop citywide prioritization list. 5. Decrease headways (peak commute periods). 6. Establish additional transit routes (Barrows Road, Murray/Walnut/Gaarde). 7. New transit center at the Murray/Scholls Town Center. Council concurrence of prioritization is necessary in order to complete an action plan on needed transit improvements. The TSP priority list will be modified to reflect Council's prioritization. With input from Council, staff can begin to work with Tri-Met and the Westside Transportation Alliance to identify what steps are needed to carn,, out the priority list. Tri-Met staff has indicated a continued willingness to work with us on developing an action plan. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Not applicable. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Transportation and Traffic Goal #1, Identify alternate transportation modes, encourage uses of alternate modes and encourage development of alternate modes. ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: 5-22-01 memo with attachments 2 & 3 from Richard Feeney (Tri-Met Executive Director, Governmental Affairs) to Bill Monahan Attachment 2: Tri-Met Park & Ride Policy, dated 1-15-01 Attachment 3: Tri-Met "Draft" Bus Stops Guidelines 2001, dated 2-01-01 Attachment 4: City Council meeting minutes of February 13, 2001 Attachment 5: City Council meeting minutes of March 20, 2001 Attachment 6: Minutes of Tigard City Council and Tri-Met meeting on April 19, 2001 FISCAL NOTES Not applicable. Hrplan/Julia/tri-met update ais.doc ' h Attachment 1 TRI COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT OF OREGON 4012 S.E. 17TH AVENUE TRI-MEr P ORTLAND, OREGON 97202 May 22, 2001 MEMORANDUM To: William Monah ty Manager - Tigard From: Richard Feen xecutive Director, Governmental Affairs - Tri-Met Subject: Tigard Transit formation Attached is background information that might assist us in our discussion on May 24. We appreciate your interest in improved transit services, facilities and programs. Tri-Met is pleased to work with the City to develop partnerships that will help meet Tigard's development and transportation goals. The attached material also includes information in response to comments raised in your April 10, 2001 letter to Carolyn Young. We will be happy to clarify any of the attached information and will consider developing further information that you might need. 1 look forward to a productive discussion on the 24th. (503) 238-RIDE • TTY 238-5811 • hftp://wwwtri-met.orq TIGARD TRANSIT INFORMATION May 24, 2001 Prepared by Tri-Met II CONTENTS INTRODUCTION SECTION 1. SERVICE AND REVENUE Tri-Met District and Tigard Transit Service ......................................................................1 -1 Tigard Transit Service Costs Compared to Tri-Met Tax Contribution ..............................1-3 Beaverton and Tigard Tri-Met Service Comparisons Year 2000 ......................................1-4 SECTION 2. TRANSIT SERVICE AND RIDERSHIP Tri-Met 2000 Origin and Destination Survey for Trips Originating in Tigard 2-1 Tri-Met Boardings in Tigard (1990-2000) 2-2 Tigard Transit Coverage 2-3 Average Weekday Boardings by Stop in the Tigard Area 2-4 SECTION 3. RECENT AND FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS Transit Improvements - Tigard 3-1 September 9, 2001 Transit Service Changes 3-2 Tigard Job Access Service 3-4 Tigard Coverage with Potential Future Lines 3-7 Tigard Transportation System Plan Transit Priorities 3-9 May 16, 2001, Tri-Met TSP Memo .................................................................................3-10 SECTION 4. CAPITAL INVESTMENTS Transit Capital Investments in the City of Tigard 4-1 Planned Line 12 Improvements within City of Tigard - Fall 2001 Implementation 4-4 Tigard Bus Stops Eligible for Shelters ...............................................................................4-5 Tigard Bus Stops with Pavement 4-6 SECTION 5. EMPLOYER AND TDM PROGRAMS TDM/Marketing 5-1 Tigard Area ECO-Affected Employers 5-2 ATTACHMENT April 10, 2001 Letter from Bill Monahan to Carolyn Young TIGARD TRANSIT INFORMATION May 24, 2001 INTRODUCTION - BENEFITS OF TRANSIT The Portland region offers a quality of life that is the envy of much of the nation. Vibrant communities, beautiful parks, stable neighborhoods, cultural opportunities, model transportation, trend-setting environmental initiatives and innovated development all combine to make this a cherished place to live and do business. Transit contributes to our quality of life and is one of the defining features of our region. Transit helps contribute to the region's livability in several ways. Transit is a key strategy in meeting federal clean air requirements by helping to reduce auto use - a major source of air pollution. The region must stay in compliance with federal requirements or risk losing federal highway money. The federal government could also impose emission-offset requirements on business and industry that would likely discourage businesses from locating here. Transit allows access to all areas of the region without increasing congestion. Today's travel patterns are varied, with substantial travel within suburbs, between suburbs as well as to the central city. Transit provides access to jobs, which is important for businesses to attract and retain employees. The access transit provides benefits the local economy. Transit provides basic mobility for residents who are unable or choose not to drive. Transit provides an alternative to more costly highway expansion. Transit can be a more efficient way to add capacity to our transportation system with less negative impacts on the environment, neighborhoods, business areas and safety than highway expansion. The following information is provided as a foundation document for further discussion between Tigard and Tri-Met. SECTION 1. SERVICE AND REVENUE We've updated the payroll figures from 1997 to include a history showing 1994 and 2000 data. These data show that Tigard's payroll tax as a percentage of Tri-Met revenues has decreased slightly over this period, while the number of revenue hours to Tigard as well as number of transit trips to Tigard have increased. We've also included a chart that comparing the cost of service Tri-Met provides to Tigard and the Tigard payroll tax and self-employment tax. Per your request, we've also included a comparison between Tigard and Beaverton taxes, transit service, and ridership. SECTION 2. TRANSIT SERVICE AND RIDERSHIP based on our 2000 origin/destination rider survey, people boarding buses in Tigard most often travel to Portland (53%) while the second highest destination being intra-trips in Tigard (17%) and third highest I-1 destination is Beaverton (16%). 55% of the Tigard population and 98% of the employment are within''/4 mile of a bus line. We have reviewed the Cityscape opinion poll and found that the questions were directed specifically for intra- city destinations and trips. We compared this survey to the census of Tri-Met passengers who board buses in Tigard. The most heavily used bus lines in order of use are Line 12 Barbur, Line 76 Beaverton-Tualatin, Line 78 Beaverton-Lake Oswego and Line 62 Murray Boulevard. SECTION 3. RECENT AND FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS Page 3-1 lists the transit service improvements since 1993. In September 2001, Tri-Met will add more frequent service to Tigard along Pacific Highway and will make complementary bus stop improvements. Longer term bus improvements identified in the RTP would increase transit coverage to 67% (from 55%) and nearly 100% (from 98%) of all employment. There are also opportunities to plan for future service around the proposed commuter rail line. Intra-City Transit Service Tri-Met improved infra-city service last year with the U-Ride Job Access Shuttle. This serves the most needy Tigard residents with flexible, convenient service. This service is the most flexible as it provides door-to-door and on demand service. Tigard TSP Please refer to May 16, 2001 memo. SECTION 4. CAPITAL INVESTMENTS Tigard has a slightly higher percentage of bus shelters than the system average (11 % vs. 10%). Tigard is scheduled to receive improvements to the Barbur Corridor this year. SECTION 5. EMPLOYER AND TDM PROGRAMS There are approximately 172 employers in the Tigard area affected by the Department of Environmental Quality's Employee Commute Option Rule. Tri-Met and the WTA works with some of those employers to develop transportation programs to offer transportation options to employees. There are opportunities for Tigard to assist in encouraging employers to help provide and promote transportation options. I-2 Section 1- Service and Revenue Summary Tri-Met District and Tigard Service 1994 2000 Net Change % Change Tigard Population 33,730 41,223 7,493 22% TM District Population 1,171,041 1,305,692 134,651 11% Tigard Percentage of TM Population 2.9% 3.2% Tigard Employment 40,219 45,873 5,654 14% TM District Employment 791,531 919,017 127,486 16% Tigard Percentage of TM Employment 5.1% 5.0% Tigard Transit Service Wkly Revenue Hours 2,317 3,107 790 34% TM District Transit Wkly Service Revenue Hours 25,698 30,660 4,962 19% Tigard Percentage of All Revenue Hours 9.0% 10.1% ..--e- _ ' gad... Weekly Transit Trips Serving Tigard 2,758 4,154 1,396 51% Weekly Total TM District Trips 39,652 48,218 8,566 22% Tigard Percentage of All Transit Trips Provided by Tri-Met 7.0% 8.6% raih "'Tri Ti ar ' . "PA-W41"e}*Z Total Daily Transit Boardings in Tigard (1990 & 2000) 2,275 4,629 2,354 103% Total DailyTransit Boardings in Tri-Met District (1990 &2000) 177,700 265,300 87,600 49% Tigard Percentage of All Tri-Met Daily Boardings 1.3% 1.7% R Tigard Tri-Met Payroll and Self-Employment Tax $4,435,961 $7,232,585 $2,796,624 63% Total Tri-Met Payroll and Self Employment Tax $87,302,038 $144,897,179 $57,595,141 66% Tigard Percentage of Tri-Met Taxes 5.1% 5.0% Annual Cost of Tigard Service in FY00 Dollars $9,861,120 $13,223,178 $3,362,058 34% i i i ti. r'I.Met pietrict and Tigard Service Y 12.0°/O 10.1°/o 10.0°l0 ~ 7.0% 1994 02000 a.0°la 5,1% 5.0°Jo 6.00/0 4.0% ° 3.2% 2.9% - 'l.3% 2.0°l0 Tigard Percentage 11 Tigard Percentage of Tri Met TOMS r Tigard percentage of All -%.Met Tigard Percentage of All Transit Trips goardings 0.0% Tigard Percentage of All Revenue Provided by Tn"Met Tigard Percentage of TM Employment Hours of TM Population t Tigard Transit Costs Compared to Tigard Tri-Met Tax Contribution $14,000,000 - - $13,223,178; $12,000,000 $10,000,000 ::$9,851;920: ' ; $8,000,000 $7x232,585 ~K rF ®Tigard Tri-Met Payroll and Self-Employment Tax x ®Annual Cost of Tigard Service in FY00 Dollars $6,000,000 to Tri-Met $4,000,000 ,5 f _ , 7's Y_M T ,.$2,000,000 as H _y~ Y t~ 1994 2000 i W • Nlet Sereice ComPansons Beaverton and Tigar Year '2000 l . figure in dude t Mote enue hours a lightr2il te~► l ° - " _ 22.9% 20.40/6 20.0% ®Tigattl ®geaverton 1 i 15.0% 7,p% AO 10. g,6°t° 6.80/0 5 0~ 'lo.o% Z.p°to mom 17° 50/0 0 5.0°to percentage of Trl- 3.2% a of Alt MetTa%es peccenta9 ~Ings ge of Alt ?ercentage~ps11 Zri-Met Boa perce Transit Met TM Revenue HOU'R' pr stage of ercentag odded by Tn 0.0°/0 a of TM pe EmplOYment p pOpulatIon d i Section 2 - 't'ransit Service & Ridership F i TRI-NIET 2000 ORIGIN AND DESTINATION SURVEY FOR TRIPS ORIGINATING IN TIGARD How Did You Get to the Stop Where Where are you Going? Where are you Going to,on this Trip? You Got on this Bus1MAX? Portland 53% Going to Work s- 38% Walked 58% Tigard 17% Going Home 35% Drove and Parked 18% Beaverton 16% Going to School 6% Transferred from Bus 18% Hillsboro 3% Going to Personal Business 5% Dropped Off By Someone 5% Tualatin 3% Going to Visit Friends/Family 5% Transferred from MAX 1% Sherwood 2% Going to Shopping 5% Lake Oswego 2% Going to Recreation 3% Aloha 1 % Going to Medical Appt. 1 % Other 4% N , Tri-Met Boardings in Tigard (1990 - 2000) r e ®00 it 1 io 0 • • • 012 - Barbur Blvd 834 1,227 037 - North Shore 4 6 038 - Boones Ferry Rd 65 45 043 - Taylors Ferry Rd 111 106 044.E King City 0 139 045 - Garden Home 268 286 056 - Scholis Ferry 246 281 062 - Murray Blvd 89 608 064 - Marquam Hill / Tigard 0 43 076 - Tigard-Tualatin 0 845 078 - Beaverton-Lake Oswego 658 636 092 -South Beaverton Expre 0 128 095 - Tigard 1-5 0 115 096 - Tualatin 1-5 0 164 Tri-Met it ~ goo - •-C•. • • • • a- Tigard 2,275 4,629 103% System (Bus Only) 157,200 200,200 27% System (Bus and Rail) 177,700 265,300 49% Z-2_ kd 8 m zEb AFRR M-m~mk' Transit Coverage :.1 'bk s~~'3 ~rJl T a X X' U. to y]~~~` ti . a-k- w 1 Mw(~..« .'ir! !i! sue.. ■ 'ti~r1x■ t 1'ffu oll Wj }rr~}r~r•iL~ .iit~ ; • 'tr j ,t{rlt V?'~'°s~ i 3 ;■`~1 i J` a i .71, t ••b T.Z. ~1 CTJ ~it'`~ ^'ri%.r i}#; 1~ ~j r.. ~•i i •:7h■ {4i~'1.rj 74•. A /t.. i C • 11 ~wi •*y ~ r~ ' Mal « .i y' i 1 " • " ~IM`Il~ ~C j,;:s•!f I.. 'tt ' E is . 4 ~ ,~~c~`'{,!IJ:~ '~`rtc~,,~•1 FSE•.' ~ ~I ~•~s±i~~ 1 l l • .a . Y. ~p .ryy s. . J)j s J• r t. I 1 t' • , • 11 {tip , X , ~ rte' r Tr.tt .1 . ~t t r = • ~5.: '::::':~}::C' 'S"'I:' • FXX rte, is •t • i [i+ Bit "H6 or C% It y ■ • • =~„Ri ..,iii«.;l•y7i•M~ 1<='r LEGEND 15 min. 60 or more • 't~^ `t 1'rrc7i' ~r,««..' Yt f f bus svc. min. bus svc.~,~~#.«~ C~~~~j~•i~~«, r r, 4yC~ < p0 B ■ ■ ■ tl1c~/{j rl s y; ""'.ter ' r 4 30 min. peak only e--Ii }~~_.at s bus svc. bus svc. r • - • r~+.-r- sir ■ Multi-Family Residential Units .t i! Single Family Residential Units iiw~f•, j~j x<~~ ' Retail & Service Employers Other Employers Tigard City Limits Area w/i 1/4 Mile of Existing Tri Met Bus Service * Area more than 1/4 Mile from Tri-Met Svc. 0 0.5 Tri-Met Service Planning; April, 2001 Miles WE Z.-3 ` • a ill e DENNEY ® • • @3 ~ s • ! a GAR • • • 1 ~ • q i op • a ' TAUORT EE _,VOCKMA a• S ~ ~ 1,331 Ons ' BROWN O " I • ° q... a MONA.. a i Ado o o• O a, ae x 1,067 Ons y jam? WALNUT a ° , . ~0it Tigard . . q y • • • • MCDONALD 0 GAARDE » 1- 2 ~j N t o 3oll 3-5 . 9 • 5-10 .A ! o 10-15 15-20 D DURHAM ,q 20-30 30 ~w44~ ° 2 fig. 30 - 40 . • 1. Ooh j ®40 50 ° s= Q'• ..JEAN 50 - 60 GwQ. , a i ® y f O i 0 60 - 70 a ' x m ~ a 70-80 Q• A 1880-90 ►e i Q iUALATIN 4p 9090-100 a 100 - 125 t. NYBERG 125 - 150 ~n 2000 Passe er census ° Tualatin 1 wileS Data tromj ans-tt center 2001 din Fetxuo~` 1 Adak 150 - 200 Exclug _ 0 v-tN et Transportation P1ann 200 - 500 Section 3 - Recent Future Improvements 9 Transit Improvements- Tigard' Year Improvement 1993 New weekday and Saturday line on Hall Boulevard Connecting Tigard and Tualatin Line 76 1993 New express route between Tigard and Portland Line 95X 1993 New express route between Washington Square area and Portland 1994 Sunday service between Tigard and Portland improved to every 30 minutes Line 12 1994 Later service to Washington Square-mweekdays and weekends Line 56 1994 Weekday buses between Beaverton and Tigard TC via Washington Square increased to run every 15 minutes instead of every 30 minutes, weekend buses run every 30.minutes instead of every 60 minutes Line 78 1994 Sunday service added on Murray Boulevard every 60 minutes Line 62 More frequent -evening and weekend service along Pacific Highway Line 12 1995 New route to Marquam Hill during rush hours Line 64X 1995 New Sunday service every 60 minutes along Hall Boulevard Line 76 1995 More frequent Saturday service every 30 minutes along Hall Boulevard and Hunzi er Lines 76 and 78 1996 220-space ark and ride opened at 74 / Pacific Highway 99 1998 Improved Sunday service every 30 minutes between Tigard and Lake Oswego (Ling 78); improved service on Murray Road eve 30 minutes weekends 2001 Jobs Access RideConnection intra-city demand-responsive service for low-income (150% or below federal poverty level) residents. $50,000 budget for first year, 300 rides taken in first two months. 2001 Improve service along Pacific Highway so that buses come every 15 minutes, seven days a week until 9:30 pm; Streamline improvements (shelters, pads, right turn except bus, potential for short bus lanes, customer information improvements 7 Line 12 a 3 a a Tri-County Metropolitan 09D) Transportation District of Oregon 4012 SE 17" Ave IM-MET Portland, Oregon 97202 SEPTEMBER 99 2001 TRANSIT SERVICE CHANGES April 25, 2001 5-Capitol Hwy & 43-Taylors Ferry: Buses will cross SW Barbur Blvd on Capitol Hwy rather than go through the Barbur Park & Ride (P&R) in order to reduce travel time. In Multnomah Village, Line 5 buses to PCC will run on SW 36th between Troy and Capitol Hwy, then across the Capitol Hwy viaduct to reduce travel times. Lines 5 Capitol Highway and 5-Interstate will not be connected to each other on the downtown transit mall. Line 5-Capitol Highway will be Line 44-Capitol Highway. 8-Jackson Park: Service between Burlingame and Marquam Hill will be provided by Line 65X; buses will run every 15 minutes during the morning rush hour. 12-Barbur Blvd: Service will increase to every 15 minutes during the day and evening, seven days a week. Buses will run every 30 minutes after 9 p.m. every day between downtown Portland and Hwy 99W/Durham Road and every 30 minutes between Durham Road and Sherwood before 9 p.m. Buses to Portland will nun on Barbur Blvd, between 13th and Bertha Blvd with a new stop at Barbur and Bertha. The bus will no longer stop behind Fred Meyer on Bertha. Buses will stay on Barbur rather than run down to 26th. A new stop and walkway to the stop will be placed on Barbur near 26th. Barbur Express buses will run every 10 minutes during rush hour along Hwy 99W/Barbur Blvd. between Sherwood and Portland and will be called Line 94X Sherwood- Pacific Highway Express. Buses will stay on Hwy 99W and not loop through the Tigard Transit Center (TC). Stops: downtown Sherwood, Sherwood Cinemas, Durham Road, Bull Mountain Road, Walnut, McDonald, Greenburg, Tigard P&R (74th), Capitol Hwy, BarburP&R, Bertha, PSU, Jefferson, Main, Morrison, Oak. 12-Sandy Blvd: Will be extended along Sandy Blvd between Parkrose/Sumner TC and Gresham via 223rd Ave. Ruses east of Parkrose/Sumner will run every 30 minutes each day, an increase over the hourly service now provided on Sandy east of 148th and 223rd between Sandy Blvd and Division. Buses will stay on Sandy through Hollywood to provide more direct service and not enter Hollywood TC. Weekend service will be doubled so that buses come every 15 minutes rather than every 30 minutes between downtown Portland and Parkrose/ Sumner TC. I Buses will no longer run between NE Sandy Blvd./956h Ave and the Airport. MAX will serve the Airport. Line 87LAirport Way will run from Parkrose/Sumner TC via NE Columbia Blvd, Alderwood and 82nd Ave. 15-Belmont: Will run on NE 102nd between Adventist Hospital and Parkrose/Sumner TC. Buses will not enter Gateway TC. Riders will connect to MAX at 102nd and Parkrose/Sumner TC. Buses to Parkrose will run every 12- 15 min. on weekdays, 15 min. on Saturdays and 30 min. on Sundays. I 20-Burnside & 26-Stark: Lines 20-Burnside and 26-Stark will be combined (new Line 20-Bumside/ Stark) to travel via E Burnside, SE 102nd and Stark. Buses will not enter Gateway TC. Connection to MAX will be at 102nd Ave. Midday bus frequency will double to every 15 minutes along Stark and Kane and Division into the Gresham TC. 22-Parkrose & 23-San Rafael: Line 22 will continue to run on its present route with its present span of service. Frequency of buses will be every 30 minutes during rush hours and every 45 minutes during the off-peak. Tri-Met will work with the neighborhood to develop ridership in the area. The loop on proposed Line 23 through the Argay neighborhood will not be necessary because Line 22 will serve Argay. As a result, Line 23 will loop at 148th Ave and Sacramento. Line 23 will run from Gateway TC via Halsey/Weidler, 111th, Morris, 122nd, San Rafael, 132nd, Sacramento, 148th. 24-Halsey: Bus will be combined with Line 77-Broadway/Lovejoy at NE 102nd and Halsey (new Line 77- Broadway/Halsey). Weekday trips along Halsey will double with buses running every 15 minutes to Troutdale, instead of every 30 minutes. Buses will no longer travel into Gateway TC. Connections to MAX at NE 82nd and at Hollywood TC. 44-lying City: With the elimination of Line 44, Ride Connection has agreed to provide more reliable service tailored to residents' needs in King City and the Highlands to augment its existing demand responsive service. Also, Ride Connection will serve shopping destinations across Pacific Hwy. 65X-Marquam Hill/Milwaukie TC: Buses will stop along Terwilliger Blvd. between the Hill and Burlingame. Line 65X will travel via Terwilliger, along Barbur, 19th, Spring Garden, Taylors Ferry and along the regular route at Taylors Ferry and Terwilliger. Some Line 65X trips will run only between Burlingame and Marquam Hill. 71-60th/122nd Ave: Will run via the Parkrose/Sumner TC. 87-181st Ave & 201-Airport Way: Lines will be combined to run from Parkrose/Sumner TC, along NE 105th, Airport Way to 181 st and Rockwood TC. Morning and afternoon buses will continue to serve Portland Habilitation Center. 77- Broadway/ Lovejoy: Will be combined with Line 24-Halsey at NE 102nd and Halsey (new Line 77- Broadway/ Halsey). Weekday trips along Halsey will double with buses running every 15 minutes to Troutdale instead of every 30 minutes. Buses will no longer travel into Gateway TC. Connections to MAX at NE 82nd and at Hollywood TC. Buses will run on NE Multnomah between Rose Quarter and NE 9th instead of along Broadway and NE 3rd to improve access to Lloyd District offices. In Northwest, westbound buses will travel via Glisan, 6th, Hoyt, 9th, Lovejoy, 12th, Northup to 23rd, Vaughn to Montgomery Park. Eastbound buses will travel from Montgomery Park, via Vaughn, 25th, Lovejoy, 9th, Hoyt, Broadway, Everett and across the Steel Bridge. Airport MAX: Will run between SW 11th Ave in downtown Portland and the terminal every 15 minutes. Airport trains will be added between the regular east-west trains. The first train will arrive at the Airport before 5 a.m. and the last train will leave the Airport around 11:30 p.m., seven days a week. Late-Night MAX Service: Will end one hour earlier Monday-Thursday and two hours earlier on Sundays. Friday and Saturday departure times from downtown remain unchanged. The last MAX trips from downtown will be 12:33 a.m., Monday-Thursday and 11:33 p.m. on Sundays. Every night the last trip will end at Ruby Junction instead of Cleveland Ave and at SW 170th instead of Hatfield Govt. Center. This change allows crews access to the MAX tracks for track and wire maintenance. Late-night bus trips will be added each night on four bus lines that run to or near MAX stations: 12-Sandy Blvd, 19-Glisan, 20-Burnside/Stark and 58-Canyon. These four lines will be in addition to the six bus lines that now depart downtown Portland at 1:32 a.m. FACTS Answers to those questions about Tigard Job Access Service: Hours, days of operation: Monday through Saturday from 5:30 AM - midnight Boundaries: Within the city boundaries of Tigard The pick-up address and the drop-off address must located within Tigard city limits. Expansion Plans/needs: Job Access provides transportation services that facilitate transfer opportunities and access to employment and job training facilities for target populations living in rural Washington County, outside of the Tri-Met Service District and the city of Tigard. In Phase I this service is a demand response system to connect residents experiencing a low income with public transit and employment thus increasing the transportation options for them. This service is provided to qualified residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level. In Phase II of the program, the service will increase the number of rides provided by adding additional employment shuttles to specific targeted employers. A new feature that will be added is travel training. Travel trainers will assist passengers in planning their routes, accompany passengers to their destinations and transfers and to explore other viable transportation alternatives. In Phase III the service will sustain and expand access to job services in Washington County including a focus in the Tualatin area and expand travel training services in Washington County. Ridership: Currently doing about 160 trips in Tigard and through March of this year a total of 5,641 trips for Job Access in rural Washington County. What Defines Poverty: Earn less than 150% of the federal poverty level Number of Vehicles in Tigard: 2 vehicles Number of Providers in Tigard: One provider Mj3 -4 low 099' Nvul ® 5 RIDE CONNECTION CONNECTION Providing Safe, Reliable Transportation Ride Connection, Inc. (formerly Volunteer Transportation, Inc.) is a private non-profit organization dedicated to linking individuals with accessible transportation. Since 1986, it has coordinated door-to-door transportation for older adults and people with disabilities in Washington, Multnomah and Clackamas Counties. Beginning in 2000, Ride Connection also began to provide rural general public service in Washington County, and service to low-income individuals for job skills training and employment opportunities. Our "dial-a- ride" services help people gain access to medical appointments, school, job training, work, volunteer work, visiting a loved one, recreation, and nutrition sites. There is no charge for riders who are seniors or people with disabilities, although we welcome donations. Coordinating an Alternative Transportation Network Ride Connection coordinates the transportation services of a network of over 30 transportation providers. Our dispatchers schedule over 200,000 rides yearly for more than 7,000 individuals. Most vehicles are wheelchair accessible and are driven by caring volunteer or paid drivers who receive extensive training to ensure the safety of passengers. Among the services and materials we provide to community-based, special needs transportation providers are: • Vehicles • Training for drivers and escorts • Planned service delivery • Collaboration with other social service agencies in the tri-county area • Operating funds • Technical assistance • Dispatch service Ensuring Future Services Ride Connection is the recipient of funds from Tri-Met and ODOT's Public Transit Division, both of whom recognize Ride Connection as a key coordination component of the tri-county public transportation system. Tri-Met provides operating funds for elderly and disabled services through a combination of STG, STF and general funds. Through Federal Jobs Access and 5311 (General Public) dollars, both Tri- Met and ODOT provide operating funds to support our newly developed special needs transportation program in rural Washington County. ODOT also provides funding for vehicles. These funds for operations and vehicles are used to support our community transportation programs via contracts with our social service partners and other sub-contractors. Ride Connection develops other resources through relationships with private foundations, corporations, private donors and other government agencies. OVER 3-S Rids RIDE CONNECTION CONNECTION Vital Statistics Those served: Seniors, persons with disabilities, low-income wage earners/job seekers, and rural general public. Service Area: Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington Counties (Specific services may vary according to geographic areas.) Type of service provided: Dial-a-ride service using accessible mini-vans, mini-buses, and volunteer-owned vehicles Rides for FY 2000: 200,000 in the tri-county area People served in FY 2000: 7,000 in the tri-county area Ride Connection Partners Clackamas County Multnomah County Clackamas County Senior Transportation Consortium Albertina Kerr Centers - Canby Adult Center American Red Cross, OTC - Clackamas County Social Services Division Friendly House - Estacada Community Center Hollywood Senior Center - Gladstone Senior Center Ikoi No Kai - Hoodland Senior Center Independent Living Resources - Lake Oswego Adult Community Center Project Linkage - MFS - Milwaukie Center Mittleman Jewish Comm. Center - Molalla Adult Center Northwest Pilot Project - Pioneer Community Center Northwest Portland Ministries - Sandy Senior Center Portland Impact - Transportation Reaching People (TRP) Providence ElderPlace - Wilsonville Senior Center YWCA of Greater Portland - Clackamas County Mental Health Washington County American Red Cross, Oregon Trail Chapter Community Services, Inc. Edwards Center Evergreen Hillsboro Health and Rehabilitation Tualatin Valley Centers Tuality Healthcare Pacificab Sassy's Cab Ritchey Transit Service (RTS) Metro West For A Ride Call 503-226-0700 To Volunteer Call 503-413-6345 Ride Connection, 2145 NW Overton, Portland, OR 97210. Ph 503-413-8924, Fax 503-413-8927 LINKING ACCESSIBLE, REPSONSIVE TRANSPORTATION WITH COMMUNITY NEED www.rideconnection.ora ~-6 wow o u1etion. 0,200 27,1300 Tigard P14 {Mile of Bus Svc. Within 14 tJtile 670/0 percent within spot& z ~d r -IG erage With .{/ate • i,C'tA~ ~}:,Y ~%+'.'~-'^yf"7lpy ~ tt ~ COV Ines qu I— 'qf{' St+' •M.~2 i~' a ~.Y r C~ ~S't C a rM qt+c'.;., ,,,w,1.eLw. ~r ~'3 •`:IT~*S a tx'~ v.p ~S'~' r _ 1 td.`''L`.a.. =:.t N k f ~ is i s3 t~ "`1 '•::w . ~a; C T~ ,••"•ww.+•til w..w '~.tsai~A, S`C. q 4t ; i~{7~',rh ?~3 vfi `''f FG..v" Y t swr+ , g, f l • t iwit L h L2 k, l r t a ~4 i"-'"~ f~~'°"..'~.. ..a. tyt~•• S3 ' r~.`~.°4 ,.w,.~.« fti.,,~l'"~!~' t f, i'~~(1 - ; N q~~; ''X''. eft (sY~/ / )C IX .l~f~~• is 1' /t«.... q X % at R y,„•~FT..j-~.. ~ tics rt~s~ia,($.L~~• f• ? y~ .'yti•~1 4' • • ~v.,, r . ! ' ~ . ~";rte` ~ ~ti tr~j~.r ' s2 ~ ' ` s.:trX ' ~f.••s. t •:.a .a 'k q.'•.'~.\jf+µ~ .t t x O . ri i ii s, r t,,j{{ L{$ r•' y .1 7t.~ 3Le w 75 t :w K;. 1N. zl )CX •x i ~ln^}''~7~M ~rrr,~ ° i ti•' ; ,f t { I i~•~~ D'w.'.'.. t..•' • a ~ .~^'"~+ry}.~~ d~ k,.~ L .s: r:;tt J v ~ i ! , . ~ ~ • •le:: ' 14g I ' t .t.a.• tr?'i"'.. • ! ~ ..d:' r;~ fj,, •,~~'.Yr,' C. jl M j eq j .,~`{}.i.. ia~':°:li 'i ttti ~ti 1 ::I• X» ~ sr.s f, yr a~. 1T ~6x.x ~ trt~ ~ ca , ~ 11 a ~ - • • ~ • ~ t r_.,.,.,.w`•.»• »y i }y w ~ro ~ 5g ~'t ?r? F". ~ L 4 ~ 4 ,a lw,,:.= ',0.•..• tG ~•..n .•s• ~n's xA "'i."'•'~~.~ ~;~••,•~Dk`~ .~tK 5 •'w .~~:;:~-~Qq: q, Q, is S.,it, ~ .ai 4~aY'k.-.~~'~'•«.i t ~ -asy ~";.1 s.a ;r~~'('S.,fit.,`~,.!~c!1'LFw_`;f'•~'w° ({{rte` .a~A~;;.•. Or q ) j,inM.w 'i,~~';~/•?~~~~11~~rrUf,F ~ F ~lC~• ~:47r`f'iae4 w':Y•~...A~ A • 4 M; F'~'{StitLlttl[I; y ~ ra w I f. # ;I 0 nl/ Bus Lines °.=~a, r a"T potential Bu 60 or more sq, 15 min. in. bus svc. ~~Mj 4 s 9 . bus svc. Peak only r: t. w rt~~ Lei `i[tl a?r in• bus Svc- 3o rrl tilt 5t p F Y . bus svc. Units „ Multi-Family Residential l Units amily Residentia Single ers.ty Service -mPI°y p.5 Retail x Other employers N Miles and City Limits Tn-Met Bus service Tig Mile of et Bus Service Mile from Tri-M - Area wii 114 M 114 V Area more than 2001 et Service Planning, ~nl' Tri-M Tigard Population and Employment Estimates 1.,~ 777777 { ~s This area is exlusively within 1/4 mile of Line 45. Population: 3,100A,-. Employment: 200 y't ti A f f A~ _ ~T v~ ~iA. ^wa Xuryy n ty~f ? ~dppgJJq r} \~f 1 1 1 m '>i Ftl,n IS Y. ~i~Ar't; 1 a4. +,r g~ e k ,s.z, f 1 `e r + r a ] Ti rY w5 r s ~ISt~,ir . dlCA .r, 7 C^my -.•R s~ y c rt..a`,"~'"'i Y.}4 r^~ rtr !{Y, 1- 9 rifi r< iN ~ r`~ { ti~ a ,f~2~•S~T' ~i'sf Y~ r ~ d' ~ d"s~ a` q; ~ ~ 3~,.•~A Ir f ) ?f ~~s ~'•ii711 1 : = r ~J ~ ! ty~+.~i. ~F i~ ` i~:. .e E ~ 1 f+~~.:s ~~=S ~ ,v-,t.+G e.+n>a J:. :C '~7 iu < ? F~ •L11:t~ ;zS~ ''~a ~5F5P .{f '.Q ~;3.. ~~~~~i~-A~ti ~.#ft...Y . •^~~'^,2'4 r». ~ .i'. ~t~='. x,T,C 1.~ ~y 9~~- K~, ~ , L Y "'s< n ~ ~~r rr; ~'iir'~~ ; 3 Y'3~ r 4' d'. w ~~~~L°tAZr t~ +SK~ .s;: ~ 7 {gyp C•iyyu~ '°.1'~'',ytr '•x "S~°+~ C`"` rs~~E S~`-T~ar'~1RJyr ~'7"->~jr,~• s ~+s a - s "4P A I'.W ~~d11 att ~jii'1 ~.~r:~ s - 1~ yi6 ~x~ h.z~~'"''1 n;9 F„~ wt~T ~i'SZ+ .<'YML Y~'~ !r4 ~ww•nA~' ~ ~~v1~_ ~ ~ ~r•f ~j:f a~.yJ`b~y.,~~. C'~N +~w" S .1•i° ~~?"'F t= ° avr:'J'a :Vw f+ bra . - 7e•+n•n f .•:1 n Y tit. y k fni. ~ ~ s ' t„ This area is served by Line 76 '4~~h fit} 'i;w•f.:= _ °K' Population: 3,200 Fii_ w ° r tt . } s~ Employment 700, 1 Xx t'f~ N. , e a' h 7 a 1~^rr • y, Y ~5~d. ~k,~ ,.y~rd~i,:cr~ s~~1~~ '.i .r~ ~ i r~` }z ~ .r ~~tl i. ~YF~~ • '~F~ %P 'r` fa r: r e4 r. r. 1. -vrer ' ~ -a tt M1t r~ ~y k i~ t}rr r t r3 v,, a a~.tir)jr` r j? t L7 sst x • < 1 ..d_•L9~ ~r~'v fJ :t .....w: ~..T d C u Y•t>''yy a-~ rra].~~y ~ f ~Y a~i _ 1,Pr Y1 j #tYt' ~'Y}MY Xxv ..r 3v r c tTsC.~f^rr ^.+,-.'s,+"-yri~bj ,•'•/V•~JgC t . e a ••~T«.? i Y•'~J '4 ^'J X x . . r - 3t c . r ♦t jS f=P~,i, a #••ii~-f~ti. Y-, X 1 1 t t rri l 1 51 ' .'r~ _j.l ~aA f r ~r7.ti.s'6rFA:. f/ a~ 'Rv X. 1 . a s r1 are s,,.a»:~ S i k X O• These areas are exlusively within 1/4 mile 'i{• 1~ X ° LEGEND of a potential new bus line in Tigard. - l; xx x Population: 4,800 Potential Bus Lines Employment: 200 j~ k; x s4ff Ile, 15 min. f r - [rty~~i~- cal P~x bus svc. ~1k~ 1 k 3 l 30 min. - 7 x >fc :~y -Pt bus svc. x 60 or more s4 :.fir t :.«s . :,:ai ` ? i min. bus svc. This area is served in peak hours by Line 3 . Population: 400 peak only Employment: 7,400 bus svc. Multi-Family Residential Units Single Family Residential Units Retail & Service Employers x Other Employers 0 0.5 Tri-Met Service Planning; April, 2001 Miles N H 1i2F11~T 3-S Ell Tigard Transportation-System -flan Strategy List (in priority order by TSP Task Force) (Source: Tigard TSP Preliminary Draft, February 2000) 1. Provide Commuter Rail 2. Provide Service Often in Peak Commute Periods 3. Provide Express Routes to Regional Employment Centers (Downtown Portland, Washington Square) 4. Provide Bus Shelters/ Improve User Amenities 5. Provide Access to Employment Areas 6. Provide More Local Transit Service 7. Provide Access to Commercial Areas (Washington Square, Tigard Triangle, 99W, downtown, Sequoia Parkway) 8. Provide Park and Ride Lots 9. Provide Access to Activity and Service Centers (hospitals, schools, community centers) Project List (in priority order) (Source: Tigard TSP Preliminary Draft, February 2000) 1. Provide commuter rail station in Tigard (with parking) 2. Provide transit amenities at major transit stops (shelters, information kiosks) 3. Improve pedestrian connections to transit facilities (sidewalks, crosswalks) 4. Decrease headways (peak commute periods) 5. Establish additional transit routes (Durham Road, Barrows Road, Murray/ Walnut/ Gaarde) 6. Add a new transit center at the Murray/ Scholls Town Center (with development of center) 3 -9 MEMO TRI-MET Date: May 16, 2001 To: Julia Hajduk, Project Manager City of Tigard From: Lynn Peterson, Strategic Planning Manager Subject: Transportation System Plan Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your TSP. Tri-Met would like to partner with you to implement the transit, pedestrian and TDM elements of your TSP to help the city meet its mode split and land use goals. The transit element of the TSP is likely to improve access and mobility for the most people with the least impacts to the community and the region. The Regional Transportation Plan provides a checklist of land use and transportation elements that should be acknowledged to carry out a transit system element (see attached). Although the TSP is a 20-year document, we are most interested in improvements that could be implemented in the next 5 years. The TSP should identify those projects where Tri-Met can be a partner to help implement. Our discussion on Thursday regarding the transit element of your TSP should revolve around the following questions: • Long term goals for transit? • What is happening in the short-term? • What is the gap? More specifically, we have some questions pertaining to the draft of you TSP. Partnerships Tri-Met is a regional transit service provider. We connect jobs to employees and shopping districts to residential areas. What we can't do is provide the street that we run the buses on, the sidewalks that bring our customers safely to the bus stops, or provide signal pre-emption to move transit riders more efficiently. Washington County is therefore an important partner in the provision of safe and convenient transit service. ✓ Streamline corridors - Tri-Met would like to see a partnership develop within the TSP between the city and Tri-Met to create opportunities for signal pre-emption/queue jump lanes on major arterials. We would like to work with you to outline which corridors would be a priority. ✓ Local Service Provision - If the city identifies gaps in coverage that may be appropriate for some type of service other than regional fixed-route service, Tri-Met, Westside Transportation Alliance (TMA) and the city should consider a partnership to identify the type of service necessary for unique Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon 503-238-RIDE a http1t ww.tri-metorg 3_l0 ~7 May 11, 2001 Page 2 circumstances and ways to fund the project. For example, neighborhood service to Bull Mountain or service coverage on Durham. Regional Transit Service Annually Tri-Met will achieve an average of 1.5% increase in bus service hours. Approximately 0.5% of that increase goes to overcoming congestion on major corridors during peak travel times. The remaining I% helps boost regional service. We hope that the during the TSP process, the city would view transit improvements much like road improvements. The assumptions made for transit improvements in the RTP should only be taken as a base case. If the city determines that additional transit and/or TDM improvements are necessary to help meet or exceed mode split goals, especially those that can mitigate the need for additional road capacity, the city should identify potential transit improvements, potential funding resources, and priorities. Existing Transit Route Man There are shaded areas that are not identified on the map nor are they in the legend. It would also be nice to see the relationship between the UGB and service provision on the map as well as the 2040 land use designations identified. Service Gaps for Future Service Needs Since you have had your consi 11tant identify areas where regional Tri-Met service is not covering those areas with transit supportive densities, were you going to include that in the TSP? And could you include the definition or assumptions for "transit supportive densities" in the TSP. There are actually several policy issues to make on identifying gaps and how to fill the gaps. For instance, is the city attempting to provide more service to increase ridership in certain corridors, provide an increased coverage (percent of households/employment areas covered), or promote smart growth development? Each of these requires an analysis to identify "gaps" in service coverage? Analysis on transit levels of service might also be useful for existing routes. An analysis of transit service levels could be completed such as outlined in the TCRP Web Document 6. This might show that certain routes have a potential for more ridership if more service was provided. To round this section on gaps analysis out, how does the Washington Square Implementation Plan and the proposed Washington County commuter rail play out in your TSP? Pedestrian Connections The city's pedestrian element of the TSP should prioritize those connections that connect pedestrian linkages to transit stops, and place highest priority on those connections that connect to major transit stops, light rail and /or commuter rail stations, transit centers and park-and-rides. These connections should be identified in the proposed capital projects list. 3 May 11, 2001 Page 3 Transportation Demand Mana eg ment The City has put a lot of time and effort into thinking about TDM strategies. The recommended plan is a good start but how will the strategies be implemented? Questions pertaining to the TDM section. • Has the city considered how it can financially support the Westside Transportation Alliance or a TMA to advocate on their behalf to carry out the plan? • One of the recommended actions is to encourage development that effectively mixes uses to reduce vehicle trip generation. And further specifies that land use density should be higher at commuter rail stations. Will this require a comprehensive land use plan amendment? • The last bullet calls for a P&R construction. Is this a budgeted item on the part of the city to contribute to a new P&R? Bus Stop Priorities The major transit stops identified in the RTP are also only a base case. Tri-Met would be glad to work with the city to identify other potential high priority bus stops that could be treated with the same attention as these stops. Please remember to identify these stops on your TSP maps and that the TSP should identify how the city will ensure that major transit stops: ■ orient land uses and building entrances to them ■ include amenities such as customer information, shelters and wastebaskets, lighting for safety and opportunities for news racks or other types of vending. The city should also identify how these stops will be implemented in the TSP. Future High Capacity Transit Corridors Washington County has begun the process of planning and financing a commuter rail line. This should be reflected in the city TSP with pedestrian access needs, bus connection needs, and whether the city believes that the rail line should be pursued as an all day service in this corridor over the long term. Financine There are two ways for the City of Tigard to implement a transit plan over 20 years. Both involve financing. Transportation Management Associations The city's involvement with funding the TMAs will directly benefit the existing capacity of the road infrastructure. The city should sit down with the TMAs and identify potential funding sources and ways to participate in joint efforts with the TMAs. Capital investments As mentioned above, the local jurisdiction carries a large portion of the responsibility of implementing a safe and convenient transit system. The city should identify potential funding sources for investing in sidewalk, bus stop landing pads, safe pedestrian road crossings, and signalized intersection priority bus 3--{2- s. May 11, 2001 Page 4 treatments. This could be accomplished through SDCs and TIFs if projects due to growth are identified in the project list. The City of Gresham is currently analyzing which capital projects such as sidewalks, bus stop landing pads, pedestrian crossings and signal priority treatments could be included in an SDC. Would the City of Tigard consider something similar? i a 1 7 r 3 -13 May 11, 2001 Page 5 2000 RTP Checklist (pages 6-20 thru 6-21) ✓ Include measures to improve transit access, passenger environs, and transit service speed and reliability for: o Rail stations, rapid bus and frequent bus corridors where service is existing or planned, and o Regional bus corridors where service exists at the time of the TSP development. ✓ Adopt a transit system map, consistent with the transit functional classifications shown in Figure 1.16, as part of the local TSP. ✓ Amend development code regulations to require new retail, office and institutional buildings on sites at major transit stops to: o Locate buildings within 20 feet of or provide a pedestrian plaza at the major transit stops. o Provide reasonably direct pedestrian connections between the transit stop andbuilding entrances on the site. o Provide a transit passenger landing pad accessible to disabled persons. o Provide an easement or dedication for a passenger shelter and underground utility connection from the new development to the transit amenity if requested by the public transit provider. o Provide lighting at a transit stop. ✓ Consider designating pedestrian districts in a comprehensive plan or other implementing land use regulations. ✓ Provide for direct and logical pedestrian crossings at transit stops and marked crossings at major transit stops. ✓ Consider street designs which anticipate planned transit stop spacing, location and facilities and are consistent with the Creating Livable Communities Street design guidelines. Section 4 -Capital Investments Transit Capital Investments in the City of Tigard Bus Stops and Rider Amenities: Transit service within the City of Tigard is supported by 235 bus stops, 25 (11%) of which are presently provided with bus shelters. System-wide, approximately 10% of Tri- Met bus stops are provided with shelters. Tri-Met recently lowered the threshold for the placement of bus shelters from 50 to 35 daily boarding rides. 26 bus stops meet that requirement, 18 of which indeed have shelters. Two additional stops are planned at this time to receive shelters with two more being potential candidates. No shelters are currently planned for the remaining four bus stops. Of the 235 bus stops 178 or 76% are provided with a sidewalk. Most of those stops (168) have a concrete landing pad for boarding and alighting the bus. 136 of those stops have an adjacent ADA curbcut. The attached maps show the distribution of these facilities and the locations that are eligible under Tri-Met's bus stop development guidelines to receive a shelter. These statistics suggest that the bus stop needs in Tigard are no greater than in other parts of the region. As part of the fall 2001 service improvements along Pacific Highway, Tri-Met is installing 6 new bus shelters and providing 5 new landing pads to facilitate ADA access to the system. Both Tri-Met and the City of Tigard need to work together to continue a program of addressing deficiencies and completing key pedestrian links to bus stops. Starting in the summer 2001, Tri-Met begins replacement of bus stop signs with a new format that features double sided, uniquely shaped signs mounted on dedicated, painted sign poles. Signs will be consistently placed. This will make the service easier to identify. Additionally, each bus stop sign will include a bus schedule holder for service using a given bus stop. This program, together with completion of bus stop pavement and sidewalk connections, will make transit easier to use. Transit Centers: Tri-Met operates two transit centers within the City of Tigard. The compact Washington Square Transit Center, now 10 years old, is conveniently and immediately adjacent to the shopping mall. It is increasingly apparent that service to the Transit Center will quickly outgrow the limited capacity of this facility. Buses also become caught in shopping related congestion getting to and from the shopping center. There may be a need within the next 5 to 10 years to relocate this facility to increase capacity and improve bus access. Consideration might also be given to a more central location that might efficiently serve the Lincoln Center and Nimbus Office Park. The downtown 20-year old Tigard Transit Center is also of limited capacity, but there is adjacent Tri-Met owned land that could be used to expand this facility. This facility also 4-1 would be adjacent to the planned commuter rail station. Tri-Met and the City should, however, consider the relocation of this facility to bring it closer to Pacific Highway and to support the downtown development plan. This would allow primary bus services on Pacific Highway to quickly access the transit center with a minimum of route deviation. Any such relocation would have to retain a direct connection to the commuter rail station. High Capacity Transit: Tri-Met supports establishment of the Barbur / Pacific Highway corridor as a priority for regional corridor study and development of a high capacity transit facility. Both Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail Transit should be considered for this transit-oriented corridor. The link to commuter rail and the Highway 217 corridor is critical to this examination. Tri-Met believes that near-term transit investments in this corridor should be compatible with future high capacity transit investments in the corridor. Tri-Met will continue to make both capital and service improvements in the corridor to relieve road congestion and to build ridership in anticipation of a high capacity transit investment between Portland and Tigard. These investments could help relieve chronic congestion along pacific Highway and activate redevelopment of key nodes through Tigard. Other Development Projects: Progress Park and Ride Lot: In 1992 Tri-Met and ODOT established a temporary park-and-ride lot at Progress, on Scholls Ferry Road across from Washington Square. This 122-space lot was constructed to temporary standards and is conditioned by the City of Beaverton to be removed or brought up to permanent standards and codes. Preliminary engineering studies suggest that rebuilding of this lot is impractical, due to its proximity to wetlands and the difficult traffic access. Tri-Met is, therefore, looking for a replacement lot to the south of Washington Square, possibly in a shared arrangement with a business or church. Tri-Met is also working with the commuter rail project to identify an opportunity to establish a combined bus and commuter rail park-and-ride lot. That effort should be coordinated with the Washington Square Master Plan. Tigard Park-and-Ride Lot: Tri-Met operates a 220-space park-and-ride lot on Pacific Highway between Highway 217 and 1-5 at the Tigard Cinemas. This lot is only 46% used, in spite of a favorable location. Tri-Met is now working to improve signage and to identify ways to promote this lot. Additionally, Tri-Met proposes to improve this facility by creating an improved bus stop on Pacific Highway with a more convenient connection between the parking lot and the bus stop using the Bargain Barn / Appliance Connection property. Improvements could include an enlarged, architecturally designed bus shelter with full customer information, improved lighting and landscaping. The lot would enjoy improved visibility and a cleaned up image, inviting increased park-and-ride use of the lot. This lot will play a strategic role as service on Pacific Highway is improved over the coming years. Other Park-and-Ride Needs: Tri-Met operates additional shared-use park-and-ride lots to the south of Tigard at Christ the King Lutheran Church (30 spaces) on Bull Mountain Road and at the Sherwood 4-2 Cinemas (50 spaces). Tri-Met needs to promote these lots to help relieve congestion in central Tigard by intercepting autos south of the city. Tri-Met and the City should look for opportunities to establish a permanent park-and-ride facility south of the City. Washington Square Transit Way: The Washington Square Master Plan calls for establishment of a transit way between the Nimbus Office Park and the Washington Square Shopping Mall. Concepts for this facility are evolving. Tri-Met proposes that this facility be limited to pedestrians and buses - perhaps small electric buses - and that it include connections to the commuter rail station and a relocated bus transit center. This would be a strong opportunity to span some significant barriers, take advantage of the topography and to link significant nodes within this regional center. Such a facility would improve the symbiosis between retail, office and future residential development at the regional center. 4-3 e 12 I.Proventents planned LIU . Qf.rigard W~.in cis lementation for Fall, ,.0-1 Imp J T _L ,gar ---L _ ,2t~DES 0 Proposed shelter pads menu ( ti _ proposed lighting improve _t ® prop osed landing-ADA pads Proposed shelters jivUne12 other Routes \ C_~ r t eligible 101 Shelters Tigard BUS stOps Highlighting those -NI3 Portland Beaverton Lake Oswego Tigard d King CI Stops With Shelters Durha Tualatin Transit Centers Tigard Bus Stops N Bus Routes Major Arterials 1 Freeways Major Streets NOTE: Yellow-highlighted squares are chose eligible for She ers- Major W aterbodies r Il r those with Pavernont ~'igard BUS StoPs H ighl~ghting _ --.J portiand r Beaverton Lake Oswego Tigard d King Ci Durha Tualatin ® Stops with pavement ® Tigard Bus Stops Bus Routes N f" t Major Arterials NN f=reeways Major Streets Major W aterbodies r r Section 5 Employer & TDM Programs TDM/Marketing Tri-Met works with employers in Tigard to help them provide transportation options for their employees. Currently Tri-Met works with 14 employers in Tigard. These employers are on Tri-Met's PASSport or In-House Sales program, or have a Carpool program in place. Tri-Met does outreach to Tigard employers, particularly those affected by the Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) Employer Commute Options (ECO) Rule. Tri-Met works with the Westside Transportation Alliance (WTA) to coordinate our efforts in Tigard. Our goal is to reduce single-occupant auto use in Tigard. We work with employers to help them find the :s; array of transportation options for their employees. Below are some examples of ways that the City of igard and Tri-Met can work together to achieve this goal: • The City of Tigard could provide information about Tri-Met employer programs and ECO services through the City office of business licensing. Tri-Met can provide written materials to this office. • The City of Tigard could conduct a workshops with Tigard employers, and Tri-Met, to gather information about the commute habits of Tigard employees and some of the particular challenges facing these employers. • The Northwest ECO Collaborators in Portland has succeeded in bringing employers and the City of Portland together to work on alternative transportation in the area. The City organized this group of employers to come together and they act as a resource for other employers in the area in achieving ECO compliance. This model could serve as the basis for a similar group in the City of Tigard. • The City could help Tri-Met promote the U-Ride Shuttle Service in Tigard, which was funded by the Job Access Program, with help from the Westside Transportation Alliance. The goal of the Job Access Program is to help people with low incomes have better travel options to good entry- level jobs and related services. U-Ride service is provided by Ride Connection, and is a dial-a- ride shuttle providing low-income residents with connections to support services, employment sites, and other transportation services within the Tigard area. • Tri-Met has a permit system allowing bikes on buses and MAX. This provides people with the option to use inter-modal transit to get to their worksite. One Tualatin employer will receive two bike lockers through Tri-Met's Job Access Program. These two double load lockers, combined with onsite showers will encourage employees to commute to work by bike. This is another example of an idea that the City could help Tri-Met promote to Tigard employers. • Public transit cannot meet the needs of every employer. Tri-Met provides subsidies to employers and employees who want to develop vanpools, or use vans as shuttles between their work site and transit locations. Tri-Met can assist employers find carpools and vanpools. Through a regional database large groups of employers can find carpool partners in their area. S-1 Page 1 of 2 5.18.01 Tigard Area ECO Affected Em Io ers C n SlleName Contact with T"et SubsidyType Subsid evel Emps ECO Affected? Z7 Abercrombie & Filch No NA NA 175 Yes 97223 AdvanW a Sales Marketing No NA NA 75 Yes 97224 Apra Earth & Environmental Yes Reimburse 100% 100 Yes 97223 Alrbome Express No NA NA 175 Yes 97224 Albertson Food Centers -NO NA NA 75 Yes 97223 Mbertson's Food Centers No NA NA 175 Yes 97224 Alert Staffing No NA NA 500 Yes 97223 All About Tours No NA NA 175 Yes 97223 Alpha Engineers Yes 53 Yes 97223 American Express Yes 60 Yes 97223 American Show Management No NA NA 175 Yes 97224 Amerx-.dd Logistics Yes InHouse 50% 90 Yes 97224 Ameriserve Food Distribution No NA NA 75 Yes 97224 ATG Advanced Telecom Group Yes 20 No 97224 AVT Commercial Path Software Group No NA NA 75 Yes 97224 Banana Republic No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 Bed Bath & Beyond No NA NA 75 Yes 97224 Bidtek Inc No NA NA 75 Yes 97224 B-Line Systems No NA NA 175 Yes 97223 Blue Bird Transfer Inc-Allled Van Lines No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 Boise Marketing Services No NA NA 75 Yes 97224 Bon A oeUt Management Co No NA NA 500 Yes 97223 Bonita Pioneer Inc No NA NA 175 Yes 97224 Borders Books & Music - Tigard Yes 40 No 97224 Brand Marketing No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 Bums Intemational Security No NA NA 500 Yes 97223 Cadence Design Systems, Inc Yes PASSport 100% 241 Yes 97223 Carlson Testing Inc No NA NA 175 Yes 97223 Centric Corporation No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 Cenlu 21-Columbia Real No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 Circuit City No NA NA 175 Yes 97223 Cily of Tigard Yes 230 Yes 97223 Club Sport No NA NA 175 Yes 97224 Coe Manufacturing Co No NA NA 175 Yes 97223 Communi K Inc No NA NA 75 Yes 97224 Communi Newspapers Inc No NA NA 175 Yes 97223 Coma Computer Corp No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 CompUSA No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 Coins No NA NA 375 Yes 97223 Consolidated Supply Co Yes InHouse $20 61 Yes 97224- Costco - Tigard Yes 250 Yes 97223 Cucina Cucina Restauranl No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 CyberRep.com Yes 300 Yes 97224 Delivery Express No NA NA 175 Yes 97223 Denn 's Restaurant No NA NA 75 Yes 97224 Dish Network Service Corp No NA NA 75 Yes 97224 E•Trade ATM No NA NA 175 Yes 97223 Elmers Pancake & Steak House No NA NA 75 Yes 97224 Embassy Suites Hotel Yes InHouse 20 176 Yes 97223 Emerald Temps Inc No NA NA 175 Yes 97223 Evergreen Mane rce & Marketing No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 Farmers Insurance Group No NA NA 500 Yes 97223 First Portland Corp Yes 54 Yes 97223 FIRSTCORP Yes 60 Yes 97223 FlrstWodd NW No NA NA 175 Yes 97224 Fiskar Inc Gerber Legendary Blades No NA NA 375 Yes 97224 Flex Force Personnel Service No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 Flv Systems Yes 150 Yes 97224 Fought & Co No NA NA 175 Yes 97224 Fred Meyer Inc Foods No NA NA 175 Yes 97223 Fred Meyer One Stop Shopping No NA NA 175 Yes 97223 Fred Shearer & Sons Inc No NA NA 175 Yes 97223 Garden Home Recreation Center No NA NA 175 Yes 97223 GE Capital/Colonial Pacific LeasinG Yes InHouse $20 199 Yes 97223 ~aSllac Total Solutions Yes 04 Yes 97223 Gray Purcell Inc No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 HDR Engineenng Yes PASSport 47 No 97223 Hewlett-Packard Co No NA NA 75 Yes 97224 Home & Castle Pools & Spas No NA NA 175 Yes 97223 Home Depot No NA NA 375 Yes 97224 Howards On Scholls No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 HunWif No NA NA 375 Yes 97224 H ter Sales Co No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 Identi ra hic- Inc No NA NA 75 Yes 97224 IKON Management Services Yes 28 No 97223 Ima eBuilder Software Inc No NA NA 175 Yes 97224 Inacrom Corp No NA NA 75 Yes 97224 Insurance & Legal Overload Systems No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 Insurance Overload Systems No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 Integrated Services Inc No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 Interstate Roofing No NA NA 175 Yes 97224 IT Corporation Yes 30 No 97224 JC Penney-Washinglon Square Yes 0 No 97223 John L Scott Real Estate Inc No NA NA 175 Yes 97223 King CI Rehabilitation & Living Centel No NA NA 175 Yes 97224 Lamb's Thriftwe No NA NA 175 Yes 97223 Landmark Ford No NA NA 175 Yes 97223 LGlntemational No NA NA 75 Yes 97224 S-2 Page 2 of 2 5.18.01 Tigard Area ECO Affected Em lovers rC n IteName Contact with Tr1-Met Subs T Subs evel Emps ECO Affected? ZJ Yoe - L is General Inc No NA NA 75 Yes 97224 Ma no Humphries Distributl No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 McDonald's Hambu ers No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 Meadows Group Inc Realtors No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 Medical 5 I Solutions 710NA NA 75 Yes 97224 Meter & Frank -Washington Square Yes InHouse 5.00 601 Yes 97223 Me 's California No NA NA 175 Yes 97223 M n Stanl Dean Witter Inc No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 MuglWn Medical Center No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 Mutual Of Omaha No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 Newport Bay Restaurant No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 N t Bay Restaurant No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 Nordstrom- Washington Square Yes 550 Yes 97223 CNd Coup Buffet NO NA NA 75 Yes 97223 Ornd S tams No NA NA 375 Yes 97223 Oregon Episcopal School No NA NA 150 Yes 97224 Oregon Episcopal Scholl Yes 150 Yes 97224 Oregon Public Employees Retirement System Yes 170 Yes 97223 Pacific Information Systems Inc No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 Pacific Northwest Title Of Oregon Inc No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 Pacific Utility Equipment Cc No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 Park Place Livi Center No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 Paulson's Floor Coved s No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 Perlo-MCCOnnad: Padfic C. No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 Phoenix Electric n No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 Pierce Pacific Manufacturing Yes 115 Yes 97224 Poly Hi Solidur Yes ui 63 Yes 97224 Pot st Inc No NA NA 75 Yes 97224 Portland General Electric- Eanh Advantage Yes 70 Yes 97224- PrecisionInterconnect Yes PASSport 1D0% 1144 Yes 9722477 Price Cost o Whd.esale Corp No NA NA 375 Yes 97223 Progressive Casual Insurance No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 Publication Services Yes 22 No 97224 Qualcomm Inc Yes 19 No 97224 Quest Diagnostics Inc. Yes Other 100% 325 Yes 97223 Quest Temporary Services No NA NA 75 Yes 97224 Owest Dex-Yellow Pa s No NA NA 375 Yes 97223 Ra idi m Co No NA NA 175 Yes 97223 RAZ Transportation Co No NA NA 175 Yes 97223 Red Lobster No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 Refa Erection Inc No NA NA 75 Yes 97224 REI-Tigard Yes Carpool 30% 73 Yes 97224 Rockwell Collins/Flight Dynamic! Yes InHouse 100% 250 Yes 97224 Rodda Paint Co Inc No NA NA 375 Yes 97223 Roger s Machine Co Inc No NA NA 75 Yes 97224 Royal Sunalliance No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 Russ Chevrolet Company No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 Safeway No NA NA 175 Yes 97224 Safeway Stores Inc No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 SAIF Corporation Yes Reimburse 1DO% 100 Yes 97224 Scientific Imaging Technology No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 Sears-Washington Square Yes Other $20 300 Yes 97223 ServiceMaster Of Tigard No NA NA 175 Yes 97224 Skyline Bldg Maintenance Inc No NA NA 175 Yes 97223 Snyder Roofing & Sheet Metal Inc No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 Stash Tea Company Inc No NA NA 75 Yes 97224 Sunrise Care & Rehabilitation For Tigard No NA NA 175 Yes 97224 S trix Technol Inc No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 T G I Fridays No NA NA 175 Yes 97223 Target Stores No NA NA 175 Yes 97223 The Eddie Bauer Store No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 The Gap No NA NA 175 Yes 97223 The Good Guys No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 Tigard Medical & Rehabilitation Yes 130 Yes 97224 Tigard Tualatin School District #23J No NA NA 5DO Yes 97223 To R Us No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 TruGreen Construction No NA NA 375 Ye: 97224 Tuf Coat Inc No NA NA 75 Yes 97224- U S Office Products-NW 5 on No NA NA 175 Yes 97224 United Rentals No NA NA 75 Yes 97224 US Postal Service - Tigard Branch Yes 114 Yes 97223 US West DEx Yes 0 No 97223 VeriFone Finance Inc-Div Hewlett-Packard No NA NA 75 Yes 97224 Voris Industries Inc No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 Verizon Infamalion Services _ Yes _ 50 No 97223- W D I Company Of Oregon Inc No NA NA 75 Yes 97224 West Side Dance & Gymnastics Academy Inc No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 Western Family Foods Yes Other 100% _ 68 Yes 97223 Western International Forest Products No NA NA 75 Yes 97223 Western Partitions Inc No NA NA 375 Yes 97223 Westlake Consultants Inc No NA NA 75 Yes 97224 Williams Controls Inc No NA NA 175 Yes 97224 WnCo Foods No NA NA 175 Yes 97223 Wonlers Environmental Services Ves _ 7 No 07223 WRG Design, Inc. Yes 90 Yes 97223 S-3 Attachment i i i i i •i; c ZU -2001 09:11 F.!.l' 50-368 47297 City oT Tigard lQ1UU1 FAY T ITTL Date April 10, 2001 Number of pages including cover sheet 13 To: Carolyn Young From: B(I( Monahan' Co: Tri Met Co: _ City of Tigard _ - ; Fax 503-96 -6451 Fax 503-6847297 `Ph 639-4171, Ext. 306 SUBJECT: Tgard Service Meetings MESSAGE: .1,-;t~ 1H Following are the materials that Councilor Joyce Patton requested I forward to you. These materials and information were the" basisIor her comments to the Board oh April : • ..t 1 ' r_t..c, [.SAY:.>MF'~~VL~.7 .T A ~ Y t' i i I 1?ENGfAK00T U4%,Ly-azuui uy:CL rA.\ Oud0041Z.41 l,icS or iiSaru 10002 .g ' April 10, 2001 C191m,90 OF YrG D VIA FAX & FIRST CLASS MAIL OREGON r Carolyn Young Associate to Executive Director Tri-Met - 4012 SE 17th Avenue, EX-3 ~y Portland, OR 97204 E NP. RE: Tigard Service Meetings Dear Carolyn: Thank you for your phone call of April 6 following up on the presentation made-by Tigard Council member Joyce Patton to the Tri-Met Board on April 4• Councilor Patton asked that I provide you with information that was the basis of her comments to the , Board. Enclosed is a synopsis of the comments made by Councilor: Patton. Councilor Patton's , comments referenced information that was given to Dennis Grimmer of your staff at an open house held in Tigard on January 29. I am providing to. you that information along with a cover memo prepared by me on January 30 for the February 13 Council meeting..-. Among the materials are: I. Tigard Payroll Taxes, Ridership and Service - FY 1997 The table was prepared by Tri-Met a couple years ago. The version attache As. . marked up with some explanatory notes that a member of our planning staff f at the time wrote on the table after calling Tri-Met for explanation. We have--:- n requested a more recent table showing the service delivered in Tigard . ' compared to the taxes generated in Tigard. In addition, we have asked for a ` comparison of the taxes and services for Tigard and Beaverton. Finally, in; conversation with Mr. Grimmer at the January 29 open house, we asked fora more-complete explanation of the table. 2. Future Transit Service from the Ti rd Transportation S stems Plan This illustration shows the transit service needs of the community as determined by our consultant, DKS Associates. The illustration comes from ti our draft Transportation System Plan. 13125 SW Mall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 I Ijl~ (4-110 /2001 09:22 FAX 5039847297 City of Tigard ~'UU3 Carolyn Young Pale 2 Tri Met An additional illustration was provided to Mr. Grimmer, entitled "The . Beaverton Service Map;" showing all Tri-Met routes along major collectors in r Y„ 3eaverton. A copy of this map was not given City Council with my January 30 memo, however, a-copy is enclosed. Tigard is presently having a map prepared at the same scale as the Beaverton Service Map to allow for a side by side comparison of service in the two communities. That map should be available by April 16. Once I have received a copy from our consultant, T will send a copy to you. 3 Cityscape Opinion Poll Result - Tune 2000 A series of transportation questions were'posed in a survey sent to all residents of Tigard. The results of the poll are attached. 'Y" I hope this letter and the materials attached present our questions. We look forward to discussing Tigard's needs for service and the ways that Tri-Met can assist us to develop intra-city bus 'service. I and in staff, as well as Mayor Jim Griffith and Councilor Joyce Patton, look forward to meeting with you and other Tri-Met representatives -to discuss how to proceed to evaluate Tigard's needs. - 3 you'foi your assistance. _ Thank Sincerely,' Williarn A. Monahan _ City Manager atts alY~.i xi Jam,. _ _ ~;,7 y~*-~'F'~. c: Tigard City Council I%4iM=TM4+er-CAA YN YOuroGDOC - `a . ~Ilj u.1 1.tvzuul 0U ZZ rAa 5 0 J U b 4 7 2 V 7 City or iisara i~uud~ Councilor Joyce Patton's Testimony to Tri-Met Board of Commissioners April 4,2001: • Good morning. _ • My name is Joyce Patton and I am a member of Tigard's City Council On-behalf oi the City, I would like to thank you for choosing Tigard as the site of your Board meetind this morning. I would also like to take this oPPortuni to share some r comments with the Board about Tigard's. transit needs. I will be brief. • Mayor Griffith attended Tri-Met's January 29, 2001, open house regarazding your proposed service changes. He spoke with Dennis Grimmer of the Tri-Met staff and = Peg Caliendo, Visioning. Consultant to Tri Met about a broader view of Tigard s transit needs - specifically: a Seeking intra-city bus service that is convenient for Tigard residents to get to` F work, shopping, medical appointments, etc., within Tigard. ` ■ The City is also seeking an update of the fiscal yeax_1,997 Tigard payroll axees-X-J. _ yaL ridem-Iiip, and service information to evaluate whether Tigard is receiving L : adequate service delivery compared to payroll and self-employment taxi generated in Tigard. a Further, the City, is seeking a comparison of tax generation and service provided for Beaverton and Tigard. Tigard provided torepresentatives of Tii-met copies; - of a Beaverton service map and a figure 7-2, Future Transit Service, from Tigard u~, draft Transportation System Plan.`" - • -on February 13, Tri~Met representatives Dennis Grimmer and Alan Lehto met witli the Council but did not addrus any of the issues Mayor Griffith mentioned orif~` • To date, we have received"no response from Tri-Met staff on our questions - thus, my comments to you this morning. • As I mentioned earlier, Tigard provided Tri-Met representatives with copies of a - Beaverton service map and a Future Transit Service map from Tigard's Draft Transportation System Plan. The Future Transit Service map shows that. . a Durham Road is a planned transit route; and McDonald Street and Gaarde Street are also potential future routes. 04''/10+2001 09:22 FAX 5038847297 City of Tigard ~QOS Councilor Joyce Patton's Testimony to Tri-Met Board of Commissioners April 4, 2001 Page 2 r Howdver,• W Bonita Road is not shown for service (many apartment complexes); and ■ Huge portions of Bull Mountain and around Twality Middle School above Sattler Street and below McDonald Street are not served at all. In comparison, mss': The map of Beaverton shows almost all major collectors in the City of Beaverton are served. • Improving Tigard's intra-city transit service is one of this Council's goals for 2001. sr • Furthermore, an opinion poll in our local Ci sca a newsletter in June 2000, showed thaf the majority of people who do not use regular bus service state as their reasons: Service is not convenient; No flexibility; Bus service does not serve their residence; and Bus service does not frequent destinations they have. ® Tigaid's'City Council would like 'assurances; froix flue Board that'T'igard.s questions r - and concerns viiffi be aiidresseci. Perhaps; the inforuiati on requested could . X-1 Co Izand forwarded to the.Council for review: Then, a mceting`of the.Tigard City .`ti .Y '1,71 : dY'i fYi,u.+lW 1 3~ ' Tn Nlet Board (or your.4esigiiated r6resentat ve, su&'as Mr.,ki (t n),cq d, meet - to proceed to evaluate Tigarcl's needs.. "t~n i rayv. to discuss how- • Finally, I would like to thank Tri-Met for its responsiveness to the cortcernsiraise customers who utilize the 95X express route. - "'SP :y a6;.'~;i::.::,1.~• -!1?'.. 'Y;,r.a:~Tfi~t.. :i: ..A: Thank you for your~tinie I would be happy to'try and~answer and giiiestions 7 j) ..r... , c;1 r. ,`1iti ..f~..., f~~aJVG~F `;T. I~MV.Yt1~ODUP+71.CTRLL~ETTESiWCEN.000 . Q4,i10f2,001,09:22 FAX 5036847297 City of Tigard Item No..r For Council Newsletter dated ' MEMORANDUM CITY OF.TIGARD, OREGON r Y4 TO: File FROM; Bill Monahan DATE: January 30, 2001 SUBJECT: Tri-Met Open House c_ Mayor Jim Griffith and I attended the Td-Met Open House on Monday. January 29, at the J. Tigard Water Building. The Open House appeared to be well attended, primarily by riders who were concerned about change of local service from Wilsonville to Portland. Mayor Griffith and l spoke with Dennis Grimmer of the Tri-met staff as well as Peg Caliendo, Visioning Consultant to Tri-Meta J Mayor Griffith and I shared With -Mr. Grimmer our concern about th e level of service. provided to Tigard in .relation to the Tigard . payroll taxes enerated. We ave,Mr.Urimnner a`copy of a page titled igar`d Payro(I .Taxes,. Ridership & Service. zr~ FY,{1997 "the ~w~ information shown oh this page is not easily.7nterpreted o~ understood We asked 6 V. ~Gnmmer-to have-somdorie!at TriMetrevlew the Information and provide us wi ~hMo re up' I I3 u~ to date irifoniia6on a'rid an ex lanatlon of its meanie atthe'u presentation to City Council. At-the'tirtie of the rrieeting'last night;:I was not sb a whether:v 'i Td-Met planned to visit with the City Council on February 13 or 27.1 have checked:` ` • ca(endar• and find that it is February 13. l#,4r:,:~ ~.1(: . 1. ~ ~ ~ 1.i . - . L.•~ e~.-( We also shared with Mr. Grimmer our concern that infra-city routes are not`now.provide by TO-Met We gave Mr, Grimmer. Figure 7,2; "Future,,Transit Service, 4romAhe Associates' Tigard Transportation System Plan. This figure shows that Durham Road`is ar3.~, planned future transit route while McDonald and Gaarde are shown as potential futurew y1 transit routes. Transit lines presently provided are also shown on the map. The rn shovers : , • . that B a Road is not even in the thou ht process of Tri-Met f oviding service. uh J, ' a addition, a huge portion of Bu our aln Road and an area of Tigard in the vicinity of the Twalit'y Middle. School above Sattler Street and below McDonald Street is not served at all. We asked Mr. Grimmer to ask his staff to review this information and compare it to a map 1 which we gave him that illustrates the Beaverton service area. The Beaverton map shows I that almost all ma'or collectors in the City of Beaverton are served by transit. We asked that Tn-_ et compare the Tigard payroll tax to the Beaverton payroll tax and the service provided to us to explain whether or not Tigard is receiving appropriate service. Ms. Caliendo noted that the Beaverton system developed earlier than ours and because of K, G4110;,2001 09:23 FA1 5036847297 City of Tigard Z(Jo7 Tigard's growth, perhaps Tigard is catching up in demand without a similar growth in service. We also shared with Mr. Grimmer the Cityscape opinion poll results of June 2000 which show that the majority of people who do not use regular bus service stated the reasons are that service is not convenient or that there is no flexibility, or. bus service does not service III& residence or the frequent destinations they have. Mr. Grimmer promised to share this information with his staff. This memo should be made part of the February 13 age da along with copies of e ' Cityscape opinion poll results, Figure 7-2 of the DKS Associates plan, the Beaverton map, and the 1997 Tigard Payroll Taxes information. . r. I,v.PM1&LLVAELCSTS7I.FAET OO~N MU+C.DOC , Y, 04.10s2061 09:23 FA 5036847297 city or Tigard IQa,UUB' Tigard Payroll Taxes, Ridership & Set-vice - FV 1997 of City of Tri-Nle( Im ttf ` t Tigard TOla1~ 1 PagrotrTax 56.092.682 Scir-Employment Tax $338,265 / \ & Total (1) 56,430,946 5.4% ` l0 3 t I ni ] ~li 3 y Annual Tigard Vehiclc Howx (2) 63,179 3.4°!0 1 Annual Tigard Routes Vehicle Hours 3 170,482 Average Weckday Ridcs - . r< lntra-Tibard (4) 1,726 0.76%/. X ~"'b~~~'-► Begin or End in Tibard 4,Sa8-----19' Tocal'Cigard-oriented Rides 6,274 Y-(-l, 5 y$-~ (I j Poh raft tar allocation based on 1994 Tigard cL• regional employment (2j Annual vdiicle (Tours reflect only those bus hours operated within the Tieardchylimits. All routes. hoxrvej~, travel beyond Tigard. (31 Ammo) rota( vehicle hours-nor just the Tigard portion- on all routes tohiclr terse the clot of Tigard. (-It Infra-7igcrrd rides ore those rid,-,s which travel exclusively within Tigard. Tlre. e are rides which are made on the service shown above as `Tigard rehicle hours." "s Qm, /hand rt< 1 tP~lxl•plytll i O1i11-L t M Miami fi a c t r:'',,,. ° :C";t• ~ dirt of 7 t..t 1. ' ran { sPortation ,ass0ClateS T ~fCS ~ t~;.~';`.~.®•,~•i~F~raa;}~•,-;~--~~,.. , oa ' ~'a + ®.GudMlfan+'.e,1,,. f:,. rJyStGt11S plan aot ;f -i 1 ®•1)untTend;,.. -~,e:'7.~~CR ics~xf •ti. &rmtchtat4dn,.. ~ t4 ®Y&aAISOtlldtb OsMl4~.'.{ a , ••.•i? ij ~ Leg", Athowd tat. 1 : ° 149Et °r'..° T Rx ; i~~:. ~ ~ tndFttwtrlra+ti1RouU 217 m •Itdtut{TntlfUfi{R IUCAMM , ,ft, { :r.E ...ti .~_..L•Sk.'~-,.•~: ~ ~ ©.fuNatnntllClnl+Oi~A'~tt u ,:i1 1 t .hAtRb~tollDUtd+ p t 'it. '•c, ~ n.., uSatR+U3YtRn aao • is ~ ,.z*'.. Y, 'I` i .lit r~~'~t ~ .ri d i''' 1 {l r 18 'A r ' s 1 i t'. t( St is KI t1 S. y. t ,..t „ y° Y 4 r~: t ~ • 9lute 7 2 } tea~ar9 Y• , !NS1T . 2'. - .,r ~vt ' i ~i~aQ (,`IHirt S 4~ . i~r• * ,r.• ''~.n° ~~M1:'' ; URE ' - Fu' `'u 4 ~J"GefdeoHata► ; r1 c., SER1l1CE IT' is ~ ~ • ~.~aa aAot~'(ua'p111:~ , ; ~ secfates Atn t.em f?~ Komar :.=v ud%lU:1JJ01 (J9:;J t-Al )UJV54/2y! l,1LS or ilgara IQJq(,;• ®rKS*% Associates City of Beaverton Transportation System Plan Legend - ' O vmwe ER Twmc Conwr ~ V J ~Y Myer7rntal Slh~o 3 P LRT Stays P ; P P r 7 { ~ f fir' _ I _ y'~.';..' Y`C'3.'•F~Y-l z ..-.Tt.e i v. i7r rf. .~Y $i ODE arm Ib Source C Mt tro (Rd:9; ro lend Irtiarmt; Syslern) F3 1 wasHngibn County 5 N Figure 3-8 a Existing Transit Routes NOT - Drat - t TO SCALE mum u~; tu~.luut l1y:LJ rA,( Jl1JD6.1!!y/ t.lt.,y' U1 11b(lt'u WJU11 _ Cityscape Opinion Polf Results -June, 2000 Transportation Questions Tf- Do you currently use ate bus? N~92 Yrs 84 No - 202 ^ 4o Response 6 T2- if you donY use regular bus service now, why not? N=202 Not convenic-AU00 nexiDU,'ly 52 Ooes na( set%rice mxideneelfroquenl dosGnaGans 52 Pretem automobile 30 ,xr x Car needed forwork 10 T'meeonsumklgltoamanytransfefs 13 Residcttoc dose to cmploymcn( 8? . Nat safe 7 Dort travel much 7 Outcr 17 ; No respocise 18,' T3- (f you currently use Me bus, 14413t for? work 33 Non-work 33 BOLh 1G - ' No resoonse 2 T4- How many trips perg;I-ould the members of yourhousehold take if bus service ash hourly ? (tfturofampymcmycrs' betweenligardneighborhoods andnearby 7igardshoppingcenters "old take the bus to and front a tocatlon rive days s week, then it would eoun(as 1 e (Y(41)- N-292 No rcmponxc=68 ~ t~~; Greater than 20 1G to 20 7 z 11 to is 6 10 26 4 (0 5 24 Y; S to 3 .58 - _s 0 73 - 'i 775- Haw of(en would you use Mc bus? Please check one of the following: N=292 No tcsponsc=49 0 (0 2 times per week 165 3 to 4 time:'ptt week 38 = , x• Oail $ Or retort f week) 40 J S • it T6- A( wlta( limes of (tic day would you use Vans-it Me most? r" • Momutg - . 1 1 L . Mk-day G2 Aftcmoon 83 Cvcning GE lto(tvisionin9asurvcYrru1t.;G-0O.Ms YranspartalionSavXau•utUy 4 • u t': lgd iuuz ua:.L4 kA.t oU3tf64YZV7 (1L3' or Tigard 4012" T7= n,e Ylgard consmunltyneeds berlerinternal 6-ansif than currt:ntlycxl~L. Now slrongfy do you agree ordisagrec with this statemenO N=292 No rGponse=23 Strongly agree 92 narec Neutral 51 q ' ` r Disagree 19 Strongly do a rce 22 T8- What do you want transit service to connect you to (please rank with f being most important): '(Columns indicate frequency of a given priority occurring (dr each. choice, X=pio(ity riot SP*drc4) N=2.92 . No tesponse=91 Washington S quart Transit center 69 35 •15 15 12- _2 7 Health Sem es 19 13 20 17 18 17 Main Street Tigard 8 20 26 21 19 23 2 a 9 'p s; L.02 . TigardTransit Center 37 33 16 11 15 12 7 ra•.: LibrarylCityH311 27 24 39 21 15 _ 9 2 " `.>20 Senior Center 6 6 6 13 s' 20 :,i ;~='6 • Local Shopping 26 18 11 17 22 13 j3 6 T8A- What locations do you suggest for local shopping? 'rr N=126 Grocery 35 (Ong City shopping 1.2 llownlownTgard 3 Downtown Pontard 5 99W/Durham 8 ; t?IhM .23 7anq:K'~~, 'y T9- Would you need (o use fransii seMoe that is wheelchair accessible? N=292 Yes 3 No 246 No response TI 0- Frost transit rorams re wire a fare to Provlde service. How muds would you be willing to PaYe ch P g 4 ";rY? ° r 'v-'`r: N=292 ts'r5 $0.50 50.75 3G ^ $1.00 91 { $1.50 32 j 51.75 4 i r MOO i 5250 7 'r~=~s . Y' 52.75 0 i S3.00 2 :z i 0 5 No rerponze GS lenA lvisian;agIsunreyresuns 6 no ct. Transpa(mon Section only 2 (;480..:.2001 09:23 t'A\ 50JU847297 city or Tigard iPJ(113 ~ r11'- What days of the week urould you most prrlcr to have transit available? N=252 Monday 141 Tuesday 135 Wednesday 139 1 Tnursday 139 Friday 148 Saturday 123 Y Stonday 78 T12- Would you use the described commuter rail system? N=292 yes 169 No 103 zg No response 20 ' T13- tfyott would not use commatcrnl7seIWCe, wfrynot? dtr ` Not convenient 16 No servleq to resideneeldestination 32 Prefers automobile 6 Need4 morc information 4 Olhcr 41 ~'Yy f -1 4a~./viSi0Al~Iawwiy tL:vftS G•rio.MS traia:poita4on Scaion oily 3 Attachment 2 CAD 1RI-MET Park Et Ride Policy Monday, January 15, 2001 Introduction Tri-Met faces challenges in providing park and ride (P&R) services to its customers. Overflowing P&R facilities in several locations, together with next year's Airport MAX opening, will place additional pressure on the current P&R capacities. In Spring, 2000, Tri-Met convened an advisory committee, composed of representatives from business, neighborhoods, local jurisdictions and others with expertise in parking issues and a stake in the operation of P&R facilities within the regional transit system. The committee's charge was to provide guidance about such issues as shared use P&R facilities, off-site impacts, P&R supply, and parking management tools. The members of the committee represented a wide range of businesses, landowners, and other jurisdictions. This committee generated a report and a recommended draft policy. In Fall, 2000, Tri-Met staff developed a new draft, using the advisory committee's report as a starting point. This document is the result: Tri-Met's Park and Ride Policy. Park & Ride Policy ` P'ftR Facility Policy The purpose of Tri-Met Park and Ride facilities is to provide access to transit with the objective of increasing ridership and mobility; to lower vehicle miles traveled per capita; and to support regional and local land use and growth management policies. Principles Park and ride facilities should be part of a mix of services that Tri-Met offers. Within available resources, provide access to Tri-Met service, using the following strategies, in order of priority: 1. Maximize efficiency in current park and ride capacity. This should include encouraging use of P&R facilities with excess capacity. 2. Provide support for and expansion of services and facilities that allow residents of the region to make their entire trip by transit, walking and/or bicycling. 3. Provide expanded or new park and ride facilities for customers of Tri-Mat's district that are under-served by transit (generally, areas more than '/e mile from service with 15-minute or better frequency during the peak). 4. Provide expanded or new park and ride facilities for customers who have other transit options, but choose to drive to transit trunk lines. Goal 1. Location and Design Locate and design park and ride facilities in ways that support this policy's principles as well as local and regional planning policies and principles A. Regional and Local Planning Policies. Build and/or operate park and ride facilities in accordance with regional and local plans. B. Metro's Regional Framework Plan. Avoid building or operating park and ride facilities within regional centers and town centers designated in Metro's Regional Framework Plan. Where such siting is desired, mitigate traffic and land use impacts on the center, such as by building structured parking in a mixed-use building or locating the parking facility to discourage driving through town centers to reach the facility. C. Under-served Areas. Wherever practical, prioritize new park and ride facilities that provide convenient access for residents of under-served areas of the district. D. Transit Service. Locate park and ride facilities at light rail stations and other locations with direct, frequent bus service to popular destinations such as the January 1 S, 2001 Page 2 of 9 PR Policy 2001.doc Park & Ride Policy Central City and Regional Centers. This must be considered in balance with B, above. E. Design. Protect the pedestrian and neighborhood environment and opportunities for transit-oriented development by: 1. Giving priority to pedestrian friendly, transit oriented development over park and ride facilities close to high capacity transit centers, 2. Reducing impacts on neighborhoods, 3. Providing ground floor retail and service space in new structured parking facilities, 4. Ensuring that park and ride facilities do not dominate land uses around transit stations, centers and major stops, 5. Reducing the impact of surface P&R lots on pedestrian activity and aesthetics by giving preference to opportunities nearer to the station, transit center, or bus stop for amenities and services of value to transit riders, and 6. Transitioning existing surface parking lots to parking structures through joint development. F. Location. Choose locations for new or expanded park and ride facilities that ensure: 1. Safety for pedestrians and patrons walking to, from, or near the facility and for private vehicles and buses accessing the facility, 2. Convenience of location, such that transit service is located close to the park and ride facility, 3. Visibility of the facility from arterials and other major roadways nearby, and 4. Optimal circulation in and near the park and ride facility to improve access, convenience, and safety for all modes. Goal 2 Resources for Park and Ride Expansion. Develop a long-range strategy for funding park and ride expansion, consistent with other _ transit funding needs. Identify lower- cost strategies for providing parking supply. A. Assign top priority to opportunities for shared use of existing parking lots in locations that serve this Park and Ride Policy, to contain costs and provide optimally efficient land use. B. Seek partnerships in which other land uses will share parking with Tri-Met. a C. Seek partnerships for joint development and/or use of structured park and ride facilities. January 15, 2001 Page 3 of 9 PR Policy 2001.doc Park & Ride Policy D. Supplement the annual capital improvement plan with a 20-year facilities plan that identifies the full range of facilities, including park and ride spaces, needed to meet the transit ridership goals of the Region 2040 Framework Plan and the Regional Transportation Plan. E. Develop revenue strategies to construct, operate and maintain park and ride facilities. Include consideration of regional capital resources allocated through Metro's Transportation Improvement Program, federal resources, new Tri- Met resources, and public and private partnerships. Goal 3. Management To manage park and rides efficiently and better allocate limited resources throughout the agency, adopt management strategies to achieve the following: A. Use strategies that encourage use of park and rides by residents of under-served areas of the district, such as targeted mailings, outreach, and marketing. B. Maximize park and ride system efficiency by encouraging full use of the entire system. Park and ride users should be encouraged to use existing empty spaces in other facilities, before new capacity is added. C. Prohibit 24-hour or longer parking that causes a space to be unavailable for two or more morning commute periods. D. Mitigate impacts to neighborhoods around park and ride facilities E. Explore the use of parking charges as a tool for allocating resources in an equitable manner that is consistent with fare policy and service development policy. 1. Consider charging when demand exceeds supply. and there is an opportunity to do one or more of the following: 1.1 Seek more efficient use of the system by providing incentive for park and ride users to go to under-used P&R facilities or by providing a higher charge for users who do not carpool to,lhe P&R, 1.2 Charge lower or no fees at facilities that target convenient access for under-served transit users. 1.3 Consider charging at all existing P&R facilities that are in areas defined by the 2040 Framework Plan as Central City, Regional Centers, or Town Centers to support land use and livability goals. 2. Consider charging when it would allow the development of park and ride facilities that would otherwise not be financially possible. January 15, 2001 Page 4 of 9 PR Policy 2001.doc 4 Park & Ride Policy 3. When charging, explore additional strategies to mitigate impacts on neighborhood. F. Develop strategies to make limited parking spaces available for mid-day, swing shift or other off-peak weekday use. G. Improve circulation in and near park and rides to improve access, convenience, and safety for all modes. H. Encourage carpooling to P&R facilities for use of transit. Allow use of P&R facilities as assembly areas for car-poolers only when there is capacity not needed by transit rider. L Develop enforcement practices to assure compliance with the elements of this policy. Goal 4. Timeliness and Relevance. As with all policies, this document should be reviewed periodically (at least every S years) to ensure that all goals are still valid and meet current needs and circumstances N i January 13, 2001 Page 5 of 9 PR Policy 2001.doc Park & Ride Policy Implementation Guidelines The following presents greater detail to guide implementation of the goals in the P&R policy. Developing new facilities or expanding capacity at existing facilities The following table presents a guide (in 2000 to maximum costs per space for developing and maintaining new park and ride capacity at existing facilities or entirely new facilities. Projects that cost more than the given maximum should not be pursued, or should only be pursued if special circumstances warrant. Maximum cost per space for expanded or new park and ride facilities (Year 2000 US$) (for facilities on service with 15 minute or better headwa s to/ rom downtown Portland) Expected life of facility: 5 yrs or less 5 -10 yrs 10+ yrs Shared Use or Joint Development Surface Lot One-time capital cost $100 $150 $800 Ongoing annual cost $60 $60 $100 Parking Structure One-time capital cost $200 $350 $1,000 Ongoing annual cost $100 $100 $150 Sinzle Use Surface Lot One-time capital cost do not do not $8,500** Ongoing annual cost pursue pursue $250 Parking Structure One-time capital cost do not do not $11,000** Ongoing annual cost pursue pursue $350 * special projects only (e.g., construction-related congestion management) includes land acquisition costs (average $101sq ft, year 2000 US$) Adjustments: • Demand Projection: Projections must show a reasonable level of demand for the park and ride. Demand one year after completion should be projected at a minimum of 60% of the planned capacity. Demand below this level should reduce the maximum costs, or consideration should be given to not developing the project at all. e Low Frequency: For facilities on locations with service that is less frequent than every 15 minutes during the peak, no single use or structured parking should be pursued, and the cost for any facility should be no more than that for 5-10 yrs shared use. c Indirect Service (requiring transfer): If no direct service is available to Central City, Regional Centers (after 2020) or a well-defined, high-ridership location (e.g., OHSU), only shared use should be pursued and costs should be no more than 25% of the values given in the table. In the future, as Regional Centers continue to develop with more housing and January 15,2001 Page 6 of 9 PR Policy 2001.doc Park & Rtde Policy employment, direct service to Regional Centers should eventually have maximum costs equivalent to costs for service to Central City. No specific date can be set; demand projections will be necessary to determine whether demand for trips to Regional Centers is high enough to warrant the costs. • Siting: Not all park and ride facilities are optimally sited. Even a facility on convenient service may not be optimal. Specifically, a park and ride facility that is on the outbound side of the street is less convenient and raises some safety concerns. A park and ride facility that is not near a crosswalk is a serious safety concern, unless all buses pull into the facility itself. The maximum cost per space should be reduced for facilities that have any siting issues. Although the amount must vary based on individual locations, if any safety concerns exist, the maximum cost should be no more than 50% of the values shown in the table, and consideration should be given to not using the facility at all. Siting Details The siting of a park and ride facility should conform with Goal 1 F, ensuring safety, convenience, visibility, and optimal circulation. To do this, park and ride facilities should generally be sited: • on the inbound side of the street so that it is easy for riders to reach the bus stop or transit station, without having to cross arterials or other large streets, • within one block of a crosswalk so that riders coming home in the afternoon will have a safe crossing opportunity to reach their cars • within 500 feet of a MAX station or a bus line with 15-minute headways or express service, during the peak. Higher priority should be assigned to sites that are large enough to accommodate commuter demand without seriously impacting its neighbors. Room for additional expansion should be available if demand for park and ride services should grow. Shared Use Packages As Tri-Met continues to pursue shared use park and ride facilities, the landowners of existing parking often ask for financial compensation or special construction assistance. Tri-Met should seek to avoid annual operating costs in maintaining park and ride facilities where possible. However, Tri-Met recognizes that some landowners will feel the need to be compensated for the use of the facilities. One-time capital construction or enhancements are preferred. However, a mix of different options exist. Any combination of the following may be used if the total cost does not exceed the maximum stated above. January 15, 2001 Page 7 of 9 PR Polky 2001. doe Park & Rtde Policy One-time only capital (preferred) Periodic or ongoing operating • install landscape • landscape maintenance • pave • periodic pavement repair • install lighting • lighting and electricity • slurry seal • maintenance of signs and pavement markings • additional signage • sweeping and garbage collection • pavement markings • security • advertising trade or promotions (e.g., bus sides, shelter ads, channel cards) • additional liability insurance on P&R use Future consideration should also be given to possible options such as tax breaks or other benefits to businesses that provide park and ride spaces. Additionally, to minimize the potential for negative impacts on the landowners parking needs, the portion of the overall parking facility to be used for park and ride should be clearly identified to discourage intermingling of P&R riders and non-riders. Removal of existing park and ride facilities The policy speaks most directly to provision of new facilities. However, Tri-Met already offers over 60 P&R facilities. Some existing facilities may contradict certain elements of this new policy. P&R facilities may be shut down or removed from the system when any combination of the following apply: • the facility's current capacity can be replaced at another location that offers access to comparable transit service and serves a similar travelshed, and movement of the facility serves some other long-term goal, such as reducing future operating costs or encouraging transit oriented development • market value of the land indicates that P&R use is an economic underutilization - in this case, sale or ownership transfer of the land should be used to leverage some other benefit to the Tri-Met system • cost per space exceeds 200% of the maximum defined for new P&R facilities • the facility is replaced by new transit oriented development of at least 30 units per acre (residential), at least 75 employees per acre (employment areas) and/or a development of Station Area, Town Center, or Regional Center density as defined by the Regional Framework Plan • new cost or exposure to liability significantly increases Tri-Met's investment, yet use of the facility is below 40% and there are other facilities with capacity in the same travelshed. Information and Promotion To efficiently use the existing park and ride capacity, information such as signage and promotional efforts should be focused in the following ways: • all P&R facilities should have wayfinding signage leading from arterials and highways in a radius of "/2 mile from the facility January 15, 2001 Page 8 of 9 PR Policy 2001.doc Park do Ride Policy • special use spaces (carpool, short term, loading/unloading only) should be designated at all P&R facilities that are consistently above 80% of capacity • facilities that are routinely above 90% of capacity should have signage indicating other options in the same travelshed o additional promotions (various media, direct mail, or on-site promotions) should be targeted to large P&R facilities at less than 60% of capacity and for any new or substantially improved P&R facility • advertising on the outside of Tri-Met vehicles 24 hour restriction Restricting parking to 24 hours may be unnecessary at all locations. In order to optimally use resources, restrictions should be focused on those facilities in which spaces may be made "unavailable for two or more morning commute periods" or where special circumstances dictate. P&R facilities should be restricted to a maximum of 24 hour parking at the following locations: • facilities which have direct MAX service to the airport, without a transfer (Parkrose and Gateway) • any facility at which overnight parking becomes pronounced, reducing capacity or creating security concerns • any facility at which overnight or long term parking is generated by non-transit use or causes significant negative impacts to neighboring land uses Enforcement This section on enforcement is expected to be superceded by new policy statements already in development. In the meantime, the following can serve as guidelines. To manage park and ride facilities in a manner that supports the elements of this policy, enforcement of certain rules will be essential. Enforcement should be guided by the following: • In general, vehicles should only be towed if they are blocking other vehicles, blocking a fire lane, or parked in landscaping, or have been identified as abandoned (left in place for one week). Vehicles that are blocking others, parked in fire lanes, or parked in landscaping should be towed only far enough to clear the obstruction. A citation should be written to the driver of the vehicle that caused the obstruction. Abandoned vehicles may be towed in accordance with existing policies. • The 24 hour restriction should be enforced primarily by citation. Towing should rarely, if ever be used, and only as a last resort after consistent violations. N January 15, 2001 Page 9 of 9 PR Policy 2001.doc IM $ " Attachment 3 x $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ S$ $ $ " $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ x $ $ $ s $ $ ss $ IV $ $ $ss $ $ s s$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 6S S $ S S $ $ " $ $ $ s $ 1$ $ $ $ i \ s $ $ $ s $ s s $ s s s , a s ~ ~ s s $ $ o s $ $ g $ $ $ $ " x $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ s s$ us S06ps G•uidel'nes 2001 $ $ Q $ FSF Tri-Met $ $ o 2/1/01 Draft s s. Table of Contents Executive Summary i 1. Introduction 1 11. Bus Stops Program Year 2000 Status Report 2 A. Bus Stop Statistics Snapshot .................................................................................2 B. Limitations 3 C. Priorities ................................................................................................................3 111. The Bus Stop A. Stop Location and Spacing 5 B. Stop Placement 9 C. Stop Elements, Amenities, and Customer Information 10 D. Bus Stop Layouts and Design 17 E. Roadway Treatments ............................................................................................21 F. Bus Stop Access ...................................................................................................23 IV. Program Partnerships .................................................................................................24 A. Citizen Involvement ............................................................................................24 B. Development Review ..........................................................................................24 C. Public Partnerships ..............................................................................................25 V. Bus Stop Development Projects ................................................................................26 VI. Maintenance Standards ..............................................................................................29 A. Introduction 29 B. Goal .....................................................................................................................29 C. Description of Tri-Met Maintained Amenities 29 D. Standards .............................................................................................................29 E. Routine Maintenance ...........................................................................................29 F. Emergency Cleaning 30 G. Waste Disposal ...................................................................................................30 H. Anti-Litter and Graffiti Programs .......................................................................30 1. Bus Stop Amenities Replacement .......................................................................30 VII. Organizational Support .............................................................................................32 A. The Bus Stops Management Section 32 B. Interdepartmental Involvement i C. Bus Stops Section Development Process ..34 D. Operations and Maintenance ....................................................................:..........34 a VIII. Program Support (Funding) 7 a Appendix A. Construction Specifications Appendix B. Stop Amenities Appendix C. Additional Stop and Zone Materials sue' Executive Summary The public's first impression of Tri-Met and its services is the bus stop. It is important that bus stops are easily identifiable, safe, accessible, and a comfortable place to wait for the bus. These guidelines provide a framework for maintaining and developing bus stops. They promote consistency for good design and the provision of bus stop amenities, making stops easier to identify and better matched to their use, location and potential for attracting riders. Through a series of development programs, Tri-Met seeks to make bus stops a positive contribution to the community streetscape and a place where riders can obtain transit related information and are encouraged to use the provided services. The guidelines identify and encourage partnerships with the community and property owners. Tri-Met is working with communities to improve access to bus stops, including sidewalks, safe street crossings, accessible curb ramps and bicycle lanes. The quality of the streetscape is critical to the success of the bus stop development program. The purpose of this document is to: 1) Identify the elements of the Tri-Met bus stop, 2) Set guidelines for the design of bus stops and the placement of bus stop amenities, and 3) Describe the process for managing and developing bus stops at Tri-Met. This document will also act as the basis for CIP development to justify and support project goals. The Bus Stops Guidelines document contains seven major sections, each of which is summarized below. • Introduction: This section looks at the various goals that govern the development and implementation of bus stop projects within Tri-Met. The section also provides a snapshot of the current on-street inventory throughout the system and looks at some of the challenges that Tri- Met are being faced with. The section concludes by identifying the short and long term goals of the Bus Stops Section. 0 The Bus Stop: This section looks at the guidelines maintained by Tri-Met to maximize the effectiveness of its bus service. This section defines preferred designs for bus stop location, layout, amenities and applying transit-preferential street treatments. • Program Partnerships: Bus stops as public spaces are as much a part of a community as streets, pathways, parks and plazas. This section explores ways in which Tri-Met encourages jurisdictions, neighborhood associations and citizens to recognize the value bus stops play in the community and looks for ways to build partnerships with these entities to enhance bus stops. • Bus Stop Development Projects: Tri-Met initiates capital projects to make significant improvements to route efficiency, on-street and bus stop safety, accessibility and comfort. This section describes some projects Tri-Met is currently implementing, which provide and / or improve amenities within existing transit services. ® Maintenance Standards: This section discusses the maintenance standards Tri-Met utilizes to keep the service area safe and clean. • Organizational Support: Primary responsibility and accountability for bus stops - their design, placement, shelters and other amenities - lies with the Bus Stops Management Section of the i i Project Planning Department. This seven person section works closely with other Tri-Met departments to provide for the regular maintenance and management of bus stops as well as implementation of bus stop development programs. This section provides a brief description of the Section's positions, responsibilities and the interdepartmental support needed to manage bus stops. a Program Support: This section identifies ways to finance and maintain bus stop program initiatives that help offset program costs. Bus Stows Guidelines 2001 1. Introduction The public's first impression of Tri-Met and its services is the bus stop. It is important that bus stops are easily identifiable, safe, accessible, and a comfortable place to wait for the bus. These guidelines provide a framework for maintaining and developing bus stops. They promote consistency for good design and the provision of bus stop amenities, making stops easier to identify and better matched to their use, location and potential for attracting riders. Through a series of development programs, Tri-Met seeks to make bus stops a positive contribution to the community streetscape and a place where riders can obtain transit related information and are encouraged to use the provided services. The guidelines identify and encourage partnerships with the community and property owners. Tri-Met is working with communities to improve access to bus stops, including sidewalks, safe street crossings, accessible curb ramps and bicycle lanes. The quality of the streetscape is critical to the success of the bus stop development program. The purpose of this document is threefold: 1) to identify the elements of the Tri-Met bus stop, 2) to set guidelines for the design of bus stops and the placement of bus stop amenities, and 3) to describe the process for managing and developing bus stops at Tri-Met. Through explanations and diagrams, this document provides the tools needed to plan bus stops and associated amenities within the Tri-Met service area. Bus Stops Program Goals: • A basic bus stop should consist of an accessible, paved area and easily identifiable signage. Bus stop shelters and other amenities shall be provided consistent with a set of bus stop development criteria. • Bus stops should be placed to assure customer convenience and provide for the safety of pedestrians and vehicles. Stops shall be visible, near crosswalks and well lit. • Bus stops should be clearly and consistently identifiable with up-to-date information for riders about services at the bus stop. • Tri-Met should solicit community input for all bus stop installations and changes, and respond promptly to inquiries and complaints from customers and bus stop neighbors. • The design of bus stops shall be sensitive to the community setting and may incorporate features that identify the stop with the community (such as art, bus stop naming or inclusion of a community bulletin board). • Where reasonable, bus stops should be accessible. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) considerations will be given top priority in the siting and design of new and existing bus stops. • Bus stops shall be located in support of institutions and with clients having special needs, large employers and community centers. • Bus stops will be spaced to maximize the efficient operation of transit service while not requiring riders to walk more than a quarter mile to the bus stop. • Tri-Met will work with local jurisdictions, communities, and land developers to construct sidewalk connections to bus stops. Regional planning targets, new or sustained transit service and bus stop investments will be used to encourage those improvements. • Bus stops shall be well maintained and free of trash and vandalism. Tri-Met will seek partnerships that share responsibility for maintaining bus stops. • Damaged or worn out bus stop features shall be repaired or replaced in a timely manner. e Tri-Met will seek to offset the cast of installing and maintaining bus stop amenities through a bus shelter and bus bench advertising program. II. Bus Stops Program Year 2000 Status Report A. Bus Stop Statistics Snapshot General Information • Service Area 592 square miles • Jurisdictions in the service area 30 • Bus Stops 8398 o Major transit points' >150 Bits Stop Elements and Amenities Poles2 8127 Shelters 888 • Ad shelters 44 Trash cans 535 Benches 1786 • Basic (used in shelters) 800 • Premium 37 • Ad 949 Informational Displays 277 • Bus Catcher Information Display 229 • BCID Transit Tubes 25 • BCID Small Pole Mounts 23 Lighting (stops with nearby lighting) 58% Pavement3 • Curbcut near landing 46% • Sidewalk at stop 70% An example of how to interpret the pavement data would be: 46% ofstops have a curbcut nearby. • Front landing paved 64% • Rear landing paved 57% Data is current as ofJanuaty 31, 2001. 1 This includes major transit points, transit centers, and stops in the downtown bus mall. 2 Currently, Tri-Met uses square tube poles. Previously, round, 2" poles were used. Please note that some jurisdictions also use these pole types. There is not a total number presented, as stops can have any combination of the items listed. For example, the sidewalk may be the pavement for the front and back landings, and would be counted for each category. B. Limitations Not all Tri-Met bus stops are consistent with the goals listed in the preceding section. In some instances bus stops are defined by the underdeveloped corridors or roads they serve. Where roadways lack underground drainage and pedestrian systems or are constrained by natural terrain, Tri-Met cannot effectively improve impacted bus stops without making significant street and sidewalk enhancements, removing or reducing the number of stops or moving service. These issues may be best addressed by a coordinated effort between Tri-Met and the jurisdictions charged with maintaining and upgrading the roadway system. • Approximately 32% of Tri-Met bus stops suffer from lack of pavement or have interrupted or no sidewalk connection to a community pedestrian network. Crosswalks may be few and far between. • Using the boarding criteria described in Section III of this document, approximately 500 eligible stops do not have shelters, though some may have other forms of shelter from buildings, bridges or awnings. • Not all bus stops are easily identifiable due to: 1) inconsistent placement, 2) incomplete customer information on bus stop signs, 3) signs that blend into the streetscape, and/or 4) one-sided signs. • Only those bus stops that have a trash can and/or shelter are cleaned on a regular basis. Bus stop inconsistencies, as measured against the guidelines contained in this report, will be identified and mapped and will be the basis for development of a capital improvement program that can be directly considered as part of the annual capital budget development process. The existing bus stop management database with its detailed bus stop descriptions together with boarding counts from the Bus Dispatch System (BDS) will facilitate identification of bus stop specific inconsistencies. Tri- Met will also be working with Metro and jurisdictions to map deficiencies in the pedestrian network that make it difficult and unsafe to access bus stops. Intergovernmental agreements must be developed to promote joint development of bus stops and the pedestrian network. C. Priorities The following are bus stop management priorities, which are either reflected in Winter 2001 programs or anticipated in future programs: • Improve underdeveloped stops where 1) supporting infrastructure exists, 2) it is physically feasible, and 3) it is fiscally responsible. Improvements start with pavement and access upgrades, followed by shelters (100 shelters / year) and other customer amenities. • Improve customer information through expansion of existing methods and implementation of innovative new methods. Examples include shelter and pole-mounted printed information and electronic real-time (Transit Tracker) displays. • Replace all bus stop signage with signs that are readily distinguished, even in active streetscapes, and to be equally identified from both directions. Locate bus stops, signs and amenities consistent with guidelines and equitably among all communities served by Tri-Met. • Evaluate all sites for bus stop amenities placement. Place shelters where it is feasible, where existing protection is unavailable (i.e., no awnings, etc.), and according to Tri-Met guidelines. • Work with jurisdictions to identify deficiencies in the pedestrian network. Establish priorities based on pedestrian safety and existing and potential transit use. Develop strategies to work with property owners to improve the pedestrian connectivity to bus stops, where viable. • Pursue agreements with jurisdictions and public utility agencies to facilitate placement of shelters, benches, lighting and trashcans. • Secure resources or partnerships that target improved and consistent maintenance of all bus stops. This includes cleaning stops on a regular basis, not just those with bus shelters, and keeping stops free of graffiti and litter. • Find revenue-generating opportunities through the use of ad shelters, ad benches, and similar programs. • Maintain and expand public outreach programs and find more effective ways to solicit, process and respond to community and customer input. • Improve operating efficiencies through bus stop spacing that is consistent with these guidelines. 16 III. The Bus Stop It is impossible to force every bus stop to conform to a standard. However, Tri-Met maintains guidelines to maximize the effectiveness of its bus service. These guidelines define preferred designs for bus stop location, layout, amenities and applying transit-preferential street treatments. The most important of many considerations are listed in this document. A. Stop Location and Spacing (New Stops, Moves and Consolidations) Approach Stop location and spacing will always depend on individual circumstances. However, one must weigh the options and choose based on well-understood criteria. Generally Tri-Met expects riders to walk up to a quarter-mile to reach the stop. When determining new bus stop locations proceed as if placing stops for the first time. If an existing stop does not fit into the process listed below, there must be a very compelling reason to retain it (e.g., if significant investment has already been made at the stop, or if there is heavy use by riders who are elderly or disabled and a new location would clearly degrade service for those riders). A stop should remain in service as designed for at least 5-10 years. Tools Choices for stop location will determine access to: pedestrian crossings; transfer lines; major transit generators; and general neighborhood employment and activity areas. What to do Preferred bus stop locations are determined in the following sequence: • Transfer Locations: All intersections with other bus lines/MAX (fight rail). • Designated Crossings: Stops at signalized intersections with safe How to determine levels of density pedestrian crossings (aim for spacing 1. The standards must be adjusted to account for the of 780 feet). difference between net and gross acreage. Taking • Other Major Stops: Major transit trip an average of 25% of gross acreage used for such generators (at closest intersection with things as right-of-way (calculated for three crosswalk, where available). representative neighborhoods in Portland - Lents, • Locations based on stop spacing: Arbor Lodge, and Multnomah), 22 units/acre o Dense areas (22 or more becomes approximately 16 units/total acre units/acre): Aim for 3 blocks/780 (including right-of-way). feet. Less than that is only 2. Mixed use, commercial and industrial areas should appropriate in special also be included by using a conversion to identify circumstances on a stop-by-stop the number of people per acre (employees for basis or for safety. For non- employment areas and residents for residential residential or employment areas areas). Using an average of just over 2.5 persons use an equivalent 56 persons/acre. per household (1990-97 average - Metro data), this Included in "dense areas" should means: be regional designated centers: • Dense areas = 41 or more persons/acre Regional Centers, Town Centers, • Medium to low density = 8 to 41 persons/acre and Main Streets. • Low to rural density = less than 8 persons/acre o Medium to low density areas (4 to 3. Future growth needs to be accounted for as well, 22 units/acre): 4 blocks/1,000 feet. and can be determined by looking at zoning and Less than that only for special regional growth projections. circumstances on stop-by-stop basis or for safety. For more information, please contact Metro. o Low to rural density areas (below 4 units/acre or 10 persons/acre): As needed based on above considerations. No more frequent than every 1,000 feet. Bus stop spacing will continue to be governed by a combination of density and subjective issues such as neighborhood demographics, available alternatives, safety, public input and efficient bus operations. It is intended that this process be objective, but also flexible enough to respond to unique needs and circumstances. As programs or requests for bus stop changes call for the review of specific bus stops, these spacing criteria will be considered. Even key bus stops may require adjustment (e.g., nearside to farside placement). Long term user and operating benefits will be weighed against project costs and neighborhood/rider objections to proposed changes. Pages 7 and 8 show examples of stop locations for areas of dense development and areas of lower density development. What to consider The following is a checklist of the most important considerations: ❑ Safety ■ Waiting, boarding and alighting must be safe ■ Access to a safe street crossing/crosswalk ■ Provide adequate sight distance, i.e., provide visibility between bus driver and waiting riders ❑ Service quality tradeoffs - fewer stops mean the following: ■ Faster service ■ More potential for amenities at each stop ■ May require a longer walk from/to origin/destination ❑ Stops must be suitable for bus operations ■ Safe access into and out of bus stop location (no parking) ■ Provide bus operators with adequate view of street and pedestrian areas ■ Provide adequate sight distance for autos before bus stop, so drivers are aware the bus is stopped ❑ Possible impacts on traffic safety and traffic delay ❑ Input and review by the public and by neighborhood and business associations ❑ Pedestrian safety to and from the stop and at the bus stop ❑ Accessible for all ■ Minimize slope ■ If necessary, construct 5' x 8' concrete pad at stop ■ Check for curb ramps at intersection and on surrounding streets ❑ Maximize accessibility to neighborhood or major generators ■ Preference for intersections at streets that connect into surrounding neighborhood ■ At major transit generators, locate the stop near pedestrian access to the generator, preferably at signal ■ Look at pedestrian pathways (formal and informal), not just streets ❑ Stops should be paired, at same intersection when possible ❑ Ensure compatibility with adjacent properties ❑ Do not move existing stops for trash, noise, and/or nuisance. Instead, seek ways to address the problem directly. OMNI Diagram 1 in s, transfer points, and major transit generators Initially, plan stops at safe crossg Preferred Sto Locations for Dense Develop n LJ ❑ n L.J ❑ a a❑ ❑ (transfer point) (majo`iransit (safe crossing) trip generator) Develo ment Preferred Sto Locations for Low-Mid Densi s (transferpoint) A (safe crossing) TTT T n T T TrrTCtTiIrSrT Moro yv son lately between the initial aced appropr 4;agxam 2 that are spaced WAN en plan stops at intersections ,fh,n plan Stop eve 0 ment Locations for Dense D ❑ Preferred SIR ❑ 2 0 1 2 spacing spacing 2 1 spacing blocks) 780 feet (3 Spacing Target: Average 1 Ofl0 feet General range from 600. Densi Devela ment ~d Preferred to Locations f or Low-M 1 2 Spacing 1 spacing et: Average 10Q0feet spacing Targ 1,320 feet General rangefrom 700 - B. Stop Placement Approach Stops are placed at locations: • that are safe for passengers and vehicles, • that may be easily accessed by the surrounding neighborhood, major transit generators and/or intersecting transit services, and • where improvements in safety, convenience and/or reduced trip times outweigh negative impacts. Tools The placement of the bus stop in relation to intersection: farside; nearside; midblock; off-street. Please see Appendix C. Additional Stop and Zone Materials, Diagram I for illustrations. What to do Table 1. Slop Placement Situation Preferred Placement An signalized intersection where bus can stop out of travel lane Farside If bus turns at intersection Farside Intersection with man right turns Farside Complex intersections with multi-phase signals or dual turn lanes Farside If nearside curb extension prevents autos from trying to turn right in Nearside front of bus Alternate nearside and farside (starting If two or more consecutive stops have signals nearside) to maximize advantage from timed signals One nearside; one If obvious, heavy single-direction transfer activity farside to eliminate crossing required to transfer If blocks are too long to have all stops at intersections Midblock Major transit generators not served b stops at intersections Midblock Midblock pedestrian-crossing combined with midblock pedestrian Midblock access into block Transit center Off-street Major transit generator that cannot be served by on-street stop, or where ridership gain will far outweigh inconvenience to passengers already on- Off-street board Stops are at intersections because: • walking distances amongst origins, destinations and stops are reduced for customers, • street crossings are legal at intersections, • street crossings are generally safer at intersections, and • curb ramps and other benefits of accessibility are generally located only at intersections. Placing stops farside of the intersection is preferred in most cases for signalized intersections because they result in: • fewer traffic delays and better safety - bus clears intersection blocking fewer movements and sight lines, • better pedestrian and auto sight distances, t • fewer conflicts between buses and pedestrians (i.e., no pedestrians trying to cross in front of bus - where passing autos cannot see them), • greater bus maneuvering area, • more effective priority signal treatments, • eliminating the danger of cars turning right in front of buses (as happens nearside), and • minimized parking restrictions necessary to get bus to curb (shorter bus zones because buses use the intersection as part of approach to zone). What to consider Every site will present a unique set of issues. The following is a checklist of the most important considerations: ❑ Travel time delays ■ Farside allows signal treatments to work most effectively ■ Alternate placement nearside-farside if signals occur at every stop ❑ Safety ■ Waiting, boarding and alighting must be safe ■ Steer riders toward safe street crossings ■ Watch for other pedestrians ■ Consider impacts on other traffic ■ Provide adequate sight distance, i.e., provide visibility for bus driver and waiting riders ❑ Service quality tradeoffs - fewer stops mean ■ Faster and more efficient service ■ More potential for amenities at each stop • Longer walk distance to stops for some ❑ Stops must be suitable for bus operations ❑ Impacts on traffic ❑ Accessible for all ■ Slope - no more than 2% for level surfaces, 8% for ramps ■ If necessary, construct 5' x 8' concrete pad at stop ■ Check for curb ramps at intersection and on surrounding streets ❑ Ensure compatibility with adjacent properties C. Stop Elements Amenities and Customer Information Approach Use elements that clearly define the bus stop for patrons, operators, pedestrians, and motorists. Provide amenities that will invite ridership by making riders comfortable and confident in the service. Do this in locations and at a level that is appropriate to the ridership and budget. Place amenities and elements of stops in configurations that maximize: 1. Safety 2. Visibility 3. Comfort i i Customer information is designed to: Show the way - Provide easy identification of every bus stop. This is achieved through colors, a shapes and symbols that are consistent but unique within the streetscape. Provide basic service information - Provide basic route information on every bus stop sign that includes the route number, direction of travel, major stops along the way and the fare zone. 3 Provide expanded information at targeted stops - Use visual and tactile tools, provide more detailed schedule information and maps at targeted stops. Use artistic elements to welcome patrons and neighbors - Art can help create a sense of place, neighborhood ownership and comfort. Tools Bus stop elements: • Pole and bus stop sign - Required, identifies the bus stop. Tri-Met bus stop signs are used at al l district bus stops. Historically, these signs have been placed on any number of existing poles, columns, light standards and the occasional tree or bus shelter. This is a past practice that Tri- Met is attempting to phase out. At new or moved stops, Tri-Met signage is placed on dedicated Tri-Met poles; other jurisdictional signage identifying the bus stop zone may also be placed upon a Tri-Met bus stop pole. Poles should be placed two feet from the curb with informational signs flag-mounted away from the street or poles placed behind the sidewalk and informational signs flag-mounted towards the street. In both cases the sign should be oriented towards the sidewalk for pedestrian visibility. Farside pole and sign placements should be a minimum of 50' clear of existing pedestrian crossings. Nearside pole and sign placements at signalized or controlled intersections should be setback 15' to 25' from pedestrian crossings. Nearside pole and sign placements at uncontrolled intersections may be placed as close as one foot from a crosswalk. Pole placement must be carefully planned to ensure that all bus stop elements work as designed, that all bus operators know exactly where to stop, and that all patrons know exactly where to board. Proper placement and installation is critical to bus stop operation. Shapes and colors of Tri-Met signs and poles will help identify the bus stop. Please see Appendix A. Construction Specifications, Sheet 27 for sign and pole installation specifications. • ADA landing pad -Preferred. Required at new and existing stops, stops with moderate or better ridership (minimum 20 daily boardings) and stops with any lift activity; preferred at all bus stops. Tri-Met defines an ADA landing pad as a clear, level landing area a minimum of 5'x 8' (10' x 8' is ideal) located adjacent to the Tri-Met bus stop sign. At new construction sites Tri-Met requires ADA pads to be a minimum of 8'x 8'. Construction of ADA pads is pursued at locations where a connection to a pedestrian pathway is possible. Please refer to Appendix A. Construction Specifications, Sheets 1, 5, & 16 for concrete specifications. • Rear landing pad - Preferred. In addition to an ADA accessible landing pad to access the front door of buses, Tri-Met prefers to have an additional landing pad at the rear door. The rear door landing pad should be considered when more than eight (8) daily passenger alightings exist in addition to criteria that warrants an ADA landing pad. Rear landing pads must be accompanied by a front door ADA landing area. This landing area must also be clear of obstacles and at least 4'x 6'. At new construction sites a rearlanding pad should always be pursued, but is not required. • Sus zone - When necessary. At bus stops where accessibility improvements are planned, and parking is available, bus zones, no parking areas (NPAs) or other parking control options should be placed. Tri-Met cannot guarantee bus stop accessibility unless the bus has a clear path to the curb. For additional information, please see Section III, Part E Roadway Treatments. Bus stop amenities: ® Shelter - Optional. Tri-Met continues to use ridership figures as the primary criterion for determining shelter placement warrants. Yet several additional criteria are also considered when ridership figures do not support shelter placement. o Preferred for stops with 35 or more boardings per weekday o Infrequent service - minimum of 30 daily boardings on routes where peak headways are greater than fifteen minutes o Lift usage - minimum of 15 weekday boardings and 4% lift usage o Proximity to senior housing and a minimum of 20 daily boardings o Shelters funded and maintained by others o Development of large new activity centers adjacent to transit where ridership is projected to meet criteria o Consolidated bus stops - combined ridership totals increase likelihood of shelter placement If a bus stop meets Tri-Met's shelter criteria it may be considered for bus shelter placement. Meeting these criteria does not guarantee shelter installation. Existing site conditions and pedestrian infrastructure, public right-of-way availability, accessibility and safety issues, and other concerns must be reviewed and addressed before future bus shelter placements are confirmed. Bus shelter placement and orientation should follow the layout options shown in Diagrams 3 and 4. In instances where none of the suggested layouts apply or are feasible, the following must be maintained: o Five feet of pedestrian passby, including clearance between poles, hydrants and other obstacles. o ADA landing pad adjacent to sign and outside of shelter. o Clear pathway from the ADA waiting area inside the shelter to the ADA landing pad. o Clear pathway from the rear door landing area to the pedestrian path. A variety of bus shelter shapes and sizes are available to address site restrictions and opportunities, and ridership needs. Please see Table 2 for descriptions. Table Z Slieller Types Shelter Dimensions Minimum Required Setback Minimum Daily Other Type (in feet) from curb, in feet) Hoardings Basic and most common shelter; B 8.5 x 4.5 x 8 11 35 sited in business and retail districts, residential neighborhoods, industrial and manufacturing areas, etc. Narrow version of B shelter; pursued A 8.5 x 2.5 x 8 9 35 when a B shelter is warranted but right-of-way is limited. BX 12 x 4.5 x 8 11 60 Longer version of B shelter; option at stops with strop usage. Rarely used; a possibility at stops AX 12 x 2.5 x 8 9 60 with strong usage and limited setback. Double length shelter; only used at BB 16 x 4.5 x 8 11 90 stops with significant ridership and like) only at activity centers. AA 16 x 2.5 x 8 9 90 Rarely used; narrower version of BB. High Special shelters for extremely high Capacity Varies Varies >200 usage areas e.g., transit centers, light rail stations and hi transfer points. Awnin Varies Not applicable Not applicable Protection provided b businesses... T"CT The specifications for Tri-Met's current bus shelters as well as shelter pad specifications can be found in Appendices B. Stop Amenities and C. Construction Specifications, Sheets 1-4, 17-20, & 23. Also, refer to Section VI, for shelter maintenance information. • Seating - Optional. Since Tri-Met has several seating options, bench placement can be considered atany stop where: o Accessibility is provided o Placement does not compromise safety (it is too close to the street, causes a tripping hazard, etc.) o Placement does not compromise accessibility (bench partially blocks the sidewalk, infringes on the ADA or rear landing pad, etc.) o Ad bench placement is allowed Benches can generally be sited like bus shelters; however, they should not be placed closer than three- and-a-half feet from the curb or six feet from the curb when a travel lane exists immediately adjacent to the curb. The same clearance requirements placed on shelters apply here. Benches should be oriented towards the street or the direction of the approaching bus. Table 3 describes current seating options. Table 3. Seating Types Type of Seat Length Criteria for Placement Notes in feet Shelter Bench 4.0 N/A Placed in Tri-Met shelters. Minimum of 25 daily Often placed in business and Premium Bench 6.5 boardings; appropriate retail districts where shelters surroundings are not appropriate. c C° Will be considered at any Placed for ad exposure or at Ad Bench -6.0 stop lacking amenities if in Tri-Net's request. a safe location. ~s Flip Seat N/A Minimum of 20 daily Very space efficient, reserved N boardin s; appropriate site forspecial situations. Mounted on bus stop pole, Simme Seat N/A Minimum of 20 daily appropriate where there are boardings curb tight sidewalks (pole laced behind sidewalk). • Trash can - Optional. Trash cans are placed in areas of high ridership, transfer locations and places where the potential for accumulating trash is apparent (near fast food restaurants, convenience stores and places where windblown trash collects). They are also placed at stops by request. Placement must not infringe upon the ADA pad or pedestrian pathway. It must not compromise direct access between the ADA waiting area and the ADA landing pad or access between either ADA area and the sidewalk. • Lighting - Optional. Currently several options exist. The existing environment usually dictates which option to use. Tri-Met pursues both overhead lighting oriented towards the bus stop boarding area and bus shelter lighting. The current goal is to provide 1.5 - 2 foot candles of light around the bus stop area. Customer information: • Printed Information - Optional. Several choices of bus catcher information displays (BCID) are available to display schedule information at bus stops. Large (2' x 4') units are mounted in shelters. Transit tubes and smaller framed units are attached to Tri-Met bus stop poles. Braille discs provide stop identification for visually impaired patrons. Placement criteria for these and other information tools are determined by Tri-Met's Information Development Department (IDP). For specific placement criteria, please refer to Table 4. • Transit Tracker - Optional. Displays in shelters that provide real time bus arrival information. Placement of this device is considered when two or more of following criteria are met: o Multi-route usage with schedule adherence below 75% o Shelter locations with existing or planned electrical power (for electrical power hook-up) o Stops with high boardings o Locations where "random transfers" occur (i.e., not timed-transfers) Other considerations: o Distance between connections must exceed 250 feet o Are not placed at end of bus lines o Are not placed on headway managed routes Table 4. Customer Information Tools Information Tools Function Where Stop design consistency, Identification All stops unique shape and color of sign & pole Bus stop sign Basic service information All stops and orientation BCID units Schedule, route map Stops with bus shelters or on Tri-Met poles (at locations with high ridership, transfer points, transit centers, transit generators and in some cases to promote new service). Braille discs (the status of this Tactile bus stop On Tri-Met poles program needs to be reviewed) identification for visually impaired patrons Real time information displays Automated bus arrival Stops with bus shelters times (focused at locations with high ridership, transfers Bus stop art Connection to community, Stops near neighborhood nodes, creating sense of lace pedestrian activity What Tri-Met wants to accomplish Tri-Met places bus stop elements, amenities and customer information to: • provide safe, level landing pads for front and rear doors (front door pad must be ADA compliant); • make waiting customers visible to the bus operator and vice versa; • minimize maneuvering difficulty for riders with wheelchairs and other ADA mobility devices; • make all parts of the transit experience as comfortable and convenient as possible, given financial resources; ® keep accessible through-path on sidewalk; • provide a clear and consistent on-street image; • ensure that Tri-Met poles and signs are readily visible to patrons, pedestrians, bus operators, and motorists; • provide basic information to orient bus patrons; and • provide targeted information that enhances the riding experience. ' 0 Things to consider Every site will present a unique list of issues. The following is a checklist of the most important considerations: For elements and amenities: ❑ Visibility of passengers to operators, and vice versa ❑ Accessible for all ■ Slope ■ Minimum 5' x 8' ADA concrete pad at stop ❑ Safety ■ Waiting, boarding and alighting must be safe ■ Provide adequate sight distance, i.e., provide visibility between bus driver and waiting riders ❑ Stops must be suitable for bus operations ❑ Ridership and lift usage ❑ Elderly housing, hospitals and compelling land uses can lower minimum criteria for amenities ❑ Clear sight lines for pedestrians and traffic ❑ Ensure compatibility with adjacent properties ❑ Avoid private property when possible ❑ Consider possible partnerships with private landowners and businesses (e.g., awnings, Adopt-A- Stop, etc.) when needed ❑ Minimize conflict with trees and other nearby features ❑ Cost ■ Initial capital and installation cost ■ Long-term maintenance cost ■ Replacement cost For customer information, also consider: ❑ Patron usage ❑ Transfer locations ❑ Service frequency ❑ Schedule reliability ❑ Special needs ❑ Labor availability ❑ Stop location on route i MEMNON= gill WDMOOM~ is, Classification bevel 2 Level3 Table 5. Bus Stop Level I Bus Rapid Transit Basic Major stops (200+ BR transit centers; Stop'fype Underdeveloped High use stops (35 BR+ / day); da high volume park All stops meeting i niftcant employer program Y)~ service; transit mall; major ma or transfer poor, or lack of, criteria sg rides; j a spacing/siting participant; apartments; ark & ride lot; all hubs rting land uses; p o suppo institutions, hospitals; Met dedicated}; all few or no boarding shopping centers; major transfer points; stops rides; ark & ride spaced with business; minor p with active lift or ramp closely lots (shared use); stops with a another stop riders who usage # V significant usage by o, are disabled or elderly ~ eatures Preceding features Preceding f plus: y Precedingfeatures plus: plus: ,Station" style shelter; pavement meets ADA or B) shelter h capacity No pavement; Standard (A ~6, or higfree standing bench(s}; shoulder; clearances; (larger if justified); shelter; BCID or real inadequate bike lockers, lids or bus stop sign on visibility blocked; lighting (utility pole or time information; other long-tee storage; dedicated pole shelter); BCID in shelter; trash can; bike rack; ao poor lighting; free standing bench; dial operator building and insufficient ADA trash can; when public telephone ( restroom as needed; clearances; pad for rear door, out only); free ticket vending machine; physically possible standing bench; art w s undue exposure to artwork element d weather/ traffic; work Preceding features plus l-A p h shared pole; Precedingfeatures possible features: d one sided visibility atures plus: these p Precedingfe plus: concession or nearby ° No clear, Safe street crossing sidewalk connections; curb landscaping c , art enhancements (Tri- shop(s); (corner, ADA ramps extensions; crosswalks Met or community); (low maintenanceU S. pedestrian access; sid walk or safe community bulletin ublic restroom; = 1 no logical, safe street shoulder access board; newspaper p box ac crossing; mait unsafe topography; vending bins standing water; unpleasant site conditions a~ W dmSS ~,S,IrIIgID~Z D. Bus Stop Layouts and Design In the past, bus stops were designed on a stop-by-stop basis leading to a wide variety of layouts and an inconsistent message to Tri-Met patrons and operators. Successful bus stops are designed to link to other transportation modes, existing or planned. Accommodating sidewalk systems is critical to assuring the safe and accessible transport of Tri-Met patrons between the origin/ destination and the bus stop. Following this section, bus stop layout diagrams are presented. They are designed to respond to existing conditions and incorporate only basic amenities. The diagrams are also intended to clearly indicate where buses stop, and where patrons wait and board. All examples assume that an accessible pedestrian system is already in place. Stop elements and amenities covered in the diagrams: • Tri-Met pole and bus stop sign - Required. The pole/sign is the cornerstone of all bus stops. Its placement must be considered carefully. • Bus stop landing area - An ADA landing area is required by federal and state law for all new stops. Optimally, Tri-Met will provide a safe landing area for all bus doors. The ADA landing area must be placed adjacent to the bus stop sign whenever possible. • Bus zone or no parking area - Required where parking might otherwise block the bus's ability to pull to the curb. The bus must get to the curb to provide accessible entry. Eliminating parking at the stop accomplishes that goal. Curb extensions and other expensive solutions are discussed in Section 111, Part E Roadway Treatments. • Bus shelter and shelter pad - Optional. Shelter from the elements makes the transit experience more pleasant. The shelter's placement, and its orientation to other elements are critical. • Trash can - Optional. Placement is often an afterthought. When placement is planned, trash cans should be incorporated in the bus stop design. Stop elements and amenities not covered in the diagrams: • Curb ramps - The following layouts assume curb ramps are present. If they are missing, Tri- Met or the local jurisdiction will install at least one when constructing other improvements. • Lights and other amenities - Great enhancements, but not covered in these diagrams. These are optional elements. • Bus zone and no parking area signage - Every jurisdiction does it differently. One to four poles are possible. These are too variable to show in a diagram successfully. • Service information - Important, but not critical to stop layout because the information is usually attached to a bus shelter or bus stop pole. • Trees, fire hydrants, mailboxes, driveways, power poles, etc. - Continue to be accommodated on a stop-by-stop basis. Standard clearance requirements at all stops: Q • Sidewalk clearance - Maintain minimum five feet of sidewalk clearance • Accessible pathway - Minimum five foot wide path between shelter and any utility objects • Road clearance - Minimum two foot clearance between shelter and edge of curb (extra care q must be taken because newer vehicles have longer tail-swing) • Building clearance - Minimum 12" from buildings, fences, and other structures to allow q i room for maintenance • ADA landing area - Minimum 5' x 8' "clear and level surface" at curb for lift or ramp operation Requirements for all stops with shelters: • ADA waiting area in shelters - Minimum 2'6" x 4' space must be kept clear for mandatory waiting area to accommodate mobility devices. • Visibility - Shelters must not block motorists' or pedestrians' line of sight • Relation to bus stop - Shelter should be within a compact space, close to landing area for access to bus (generally within 25'). -a Diagram 3 Bus stop design: Sidewalks with furnishing zones Basic Expanded Bus Zone/NPA Bus Zone/NPA TM sign/pole Landing Landing® TM sign/pole Landing LandingG O Trash can pad pad pad pad Existing sidewalk Existing..sidewalk Property line Property line TM sign/pole Bus Zone/NPA TM sign/pole Bus Zone/NPA Landing Landing & • Landing Landing & pad Shelter pad Shelter pad Shelter pad Shelter . . . Trash can Existing sidewalk Existing sidewalk Property line Property line Bus Zone/NPA Bus Zone/NPA TM sign/pole > Landing ®TM sign/pole Landing ®O Trash can pad 4 `A' She ter pad `A' She ter Landing& Landing & Existing ' e k Shelter pad Existing e k Shelter pad, Property line Property line MMEM ~V Diagram 4 Bus sto des' n: Sidewalks without furnishin Zones Expanded Basic Bus Zone/NPA Bus Zone/NPA ® TM sign/pole ~'.TM signlpole Existing Sidewalk Existing sidewalk an tng . an Mg Property line line Property Bus Zone/NPA._ . . Existing Sidewalk TM Si pole Existirigsidewalk . TIYI si pole Landing &_y 'Br Shelter Shelter pad Landing A helter line Shelter pad property rty Prope line Bus Zone/NPA.._ Bus Zone/NPA ........................._...............3 0 TM sign/pole 7777777 M signlpole Existing sidewalk 77777 ' . Existirig sidewalk Landing & TV Shelter Shelter pad Landing & line ' helter Shelter pad Property Property line E. Roadway Treatments Approach Change management or structure of roadway to improve transit efficiency and accessibility. Focus on locations or corridors with the highest delays and/or those that create the most variability in on-time performance. Consider ridership and lift usage at stops. Tools 1. Bus zones or other parking restrictions A bus stop is not considered accessible unless the bus can reach the curb. Bus zones, no parking areas (NPAs) and other parking restrictions are often necessary to assure access. Bus zones or NPAs are required when: • it is determined that a stop must be accessible. • parking is allowed at the stop. • there is not justification for a curb extension, stop move or stop deletion. • buses lay over. Nearside (NS) Bus Zones - preferred length is 80' measured from the bus stop sign. In extreme circumstances NS bus zones can be shortened to 60', however buses may not be able to clear the travel lane. At signalized intersections the bus should stop a minimum of 15' from the pedestrian crossing so that approaching drivers will be able to see pedestrians using the crosswalk. The area between crosswalk and bus stop must also prohibit parking. Farside (FS) Bus Zones - preferred length is 80' measured from the crosswalk. In all instances the rear of the bus must clear the crosswalk. Farside zones can be shortened to 60', however buses may not be able to clear the travel lane. Midblock (AT or OP) Bus Zones - preferred length is 90' measured from the bus stop sign. A minimum length for midblock zones is determined on a site-by-site basis. These zones are infrequently used, but are found on "super-blocks" often opposite of `T' intersections in high-density areas and along mid- and lower density area roadways with few intersections. Bus zones must be clearly marked - since parking control is provided by jurisdictions, so is the signage and marking requirements, resulting in several variations. Generally bus zones are marked by a front zone sign/pole, and a rear zone sign/pole. At farside zones, bus stop markers are often used to indicate where the bus should stop (to allow enough space to pullout). An NPA sign/pole may be added at the front of a bus zone to clearly define ambiguous frontage (i.e., between a zone and a driveway, or a zone and a fire hydrant). The City of Portland applies yellow tape to the curb tops in bus zones to further define the space. Please refer to Appendix C. Additional Stop and Zone Materials, Diagrams 2 & 3 for technical specifications, incorporating driveways, etc. 2. Curb extensions incorporating transit stops Curb extensions are a popular roadway treatment often used in streetscape improvement plans. For best effect, extensions are placed along a corridor in series of two or four to an intersection. Under this scenario the extensions improve pedestrian connections by shortening street crossing distances, and improving sight angles for pedestrians and motorists. For transit, curb extensions have several benefits. They: • provide buses with access to the curb from the travel lane without deviation (no pulling in or merging) thereby reducing dwell time. • can reduce nearside stop turning conflicts on two lane roads by blocking through traffic. • provide patron waiting and boarding areas separated from pedestrian movements on sidewalks. • provide room for stop amenities or other streetscape features. • visually designate a street as a pedestrian friendly transit corridor. Designing/building curb extensions that work well with transit is not an easy task. Designers must battle with the competing cross slopes of the existing roadway and sidewalks, consider drainage and relocate sewer grates. As a result, few extensions actually provide a landing area that allows low floor bus ramps to deploy at an ADA acceptable slope. Following are the general requirements for transit stop curb extensions: • Transit curb extensions should be paired with a pedestrian or transit curb extension across the travel street. • Curb extensions must be clearly marked/designated to improve their visibility to motorists. • Extensions must provide a minimum 32' of curbline free of ramps, wings and curb returns. At farside extensions, the bus must be clear of the crosswalk, requiring a minimum of 42' of clear curbline. • A 6'x 8' clear space must be defined at front and rear door locations (door locations should be indicated by curb tape or paint). • Bus shelters, poles, trees, benches, trash cans and other amenities must be placed a minimum of three-and-a-half feet clear of the curb face. • Placement of curb extensions, whether nearside, farside, at signalized or non-signalized intersections must be made on a case-by-case basis. Generally, nearside curb extensions are preferred at non-signalized intersections. Technical information for curb extensions can be found in Appendix A. Construction Specifications, Sheet 24, and Appendix C. Additional Stop and Zone Materials, Diagram 4. 3. Bus pullouts and bus pads A bus pullout's primary function is to move buses out of travel lanes where they might impede traffic flow. Although there are scenarios where this is a valuable function, Tri-Met does not actively pursue the placement of bus pullouts at regular bus stops because it reduces the efficiency of transit service. Tri-Met will consider accepting pullouts: • at bus layovers (where buses park for several minutes) • at selected bus stops on roads with at least two of the following: o posted speed limit at or above 45 mph o ridership above 35 daily boardings (or six (6) daily lift boardings) o potential safety issues Concrete bus pads are often incorporated in pullout designs but are also used at curbside bus stops. Bus pads are considered on a case-by-case basis but are generally found at stops with frequent service, significant ridership, or where heavy bus braking and acceleration is necessary. Technical information for pullouts and pads can be found in Appendix A. Construction Specifications, Sheets 25 & 26, and Appendix C. Additional Stop and Zone Materials, Diagram 5. 4. "Except Bus" signage, queue jump signals and bus only lanes These treatments should be pursued on major trunk routes, crosstown routes or any high frequency bus routes with significant traffic delays during peak periods. "Except Bus" M 511 ill Oil ii 1, !1 12 1111 11 1:11 signage is the most common treatment where a nearside bus stop at a signalized intersection uses a right turn pocket. Queue jump signals are used in conjunction with an "except bus" queue jump lane (especially when there is no farside lane) to provide safe merging into traffic lane. Bus only lanes provide exclusive right-of-way to bypass congestion, but are only used when adequate right-of-way is available. What to do Each treatment has differing effectiveness based on the individual circumstances. Detailed analysis of such issues as traffic volume, ridership, safety, right-of-way, and delay to transit are required. The City of Portland's Transit Preferential Streets Program Sourcebook (June 1997), developed with Tri-Met participation, and Tri-Met's Streamline project guidelines contain more information on these tools. Things to consider Every site will present a unique list of issues. Use the following as a checklist of the most important considerations: ❑ Pedestrian safety ❑ Traffic safety ❑ Transit operation safety ❑ Schedule reliability ❑ Transit travel time and speeds ❑ Impact on traffic ❑ CostsBenefits F. Bus Stop Access It is essential that bus riders have safe access to their bus stop. Walking on narrow roadway shoulders, through mud or puddles, or through ditches is unacceptable to most bus riders and is often unsafe. Tri-Met does not hold responsibility for construction or maintenance of sidewalks or curb ramps, but Tri-Met can leverage their construction through partnerships with jurisdictions and property owners or solicitation of regional funding for their construction. The pedestrian network is not only essential for transit access, but benefits the community and the region by encouraging walking for local travel. Tri-Met must work with Metro and local jurisdictions to identify deficiencies in the pedestrian network using geographic information system (GIS) tools and then assign priorities for a pedestrian network development program. Some key considerations would include: • Direct, paved, ADA compliant walk connections between any moderate-to-dense neighborhood or business center and transit stops. These should be on at least one side of the street. • Pedestrian connections need to be continuous, with a safe crosswalk where sidewalks must shift from one side of the street to another. Driveways need to be limited and well lit for pedestrian safety. • Designated and protected pedestrian crosswalks across arterial streets, no further apart than three blocks or 780 feet. • Street lighting, particularly at street crossings. • ADA compliant curb ramps at each intersection. • Sidewalks need to be in good repair and free of trip hazards. • Sidewalks and bus §tops will be coordinated to provide ADA clearances and amenities of mutual benefit to both pedestrians and bus riders. Tri-Met will support efforts to secure funding for pedestrian network development including Federal programs and their local allocation, designation of improvement districts or assignment of local Traffic Impact Fees (TIF) or other local tax mechanisms. DEMME= IV. Program Partnerships A. Citizen Involvement Bus stops as public spaces are as much a part of a community as streets, pathways, parks and plazas. Tri-Met encourages communities and citizens to recognize their value and to build a sense of ownership. Tri-Met, in partnership with Stop Oregon Litter and Vandalism (SOLV), promotes several ways for citizens to participate in the care of their local stops. Adopt-A-Stop - A customer agrees to pick up the litter, clean the stop amenities and report any items needing repair in exchange for gloves, cleaning supplies and a steady supply of bus tickets. Keep-A-Can - If trash is an issue at a particular stop, customers or local businesses can sponsor a trash can. Under the program, volunteers agree to empty and provide service for a trash can. In return, Tri-Met will provide an attractive, industrial strength can, liner, and soda can recycling container for the stop. Tri-Met also offers other programs that do not relate directly to bus stops but give citizens the opportunity to support the public transit system. Details on transit, safety advocacy or any other Tri- Met opportunity are available through Tri-Met's Customer Service Department. B. Development Review 1. Background Tri-Met has been conducting development review on transit-adjacent development for over six years. This review process has fostered strong relationships with local jurisdictions, while helping to facilitate better designs for new development. The review process enables Tri-Met to be involved early enough in the process to influence the land use and infrastructure designs being proposed. Including transit improvements as part of new development helps to mitigate for transportation impacts and allows the cost of these amenities to be shared by developers. In the end, these partnerships stretch resources and create a more comprehensive transit system. 2. Improving stop placement With an emphasis on bus stop improvement and support, Tri-Met primarily reviews development projects located directly on transit routes. For significant projects, stop spacing, location and usage along the adjacent route segment are analyzed to determine whether stop relocation or adjustment would facilitate: a) better access to transit, b) patron and pedestrian safety, c) transit operational efficiency, or d) traffic safety. If appropriate, modifications to roadway and frontage design, signalization, pedestrian pathways and street or parking lot crossings will be considered. 3. Private sector purchasing amenities, joining SOLV, adopting stops Depending on the size and nature of the development or development action, Tri-Met may request improvements to adjacent bus stops. If frontage improvements are planned Tri-Met will request the addition of an ADA landing pad and a rear door landing pad at stops that lack them. If ridership potential exists, Tri-Met may request that a developer provide a bus shelter, a bench or other bus stop amenities as warranted. In some instances, developers may want to provide a H bus shelter where only limited ridership is projected (e.g., to satisfy a condition of approval or to i receive an exemption from certain conditions of approval). In this scenario, Tri-Met asks developers to take an active role in caring for the stop by joining SOLV, adopting the stop, sponsoring a trash can or agreeing to regularly clean the stop. 7 4. Private sector designing transit stops and plazas Some jurisdictions are asking developers and their architects to incorporate transit stops into their projects' designs. Building and frontage themes are replicated at the bus stop, creating transit plazas that visually relate to the project. Awnings, columns, pedestals, shelters, benches and public art provided by developers are not standard Tri-Met issue, therefore, their care becomes the individual property owner's responsibility (Tri-Met still provides and maintains signage and customer information). C. Public Partnerships 1. Responding to the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) The 2040 Framework presents a vision for livability for the Portland metropolitan area. It defines the Portland and Vancouver city centers which are surrounded by regional centers, town centers, station areas and main streets, all of which have levels of urban density that call for concentrated transit services. The plan also calls for an extensive transit network that serves all communities with various forms of transit - from light rail transit to local neighborhood buses. The RTP is the 5-year plan that responds to the transportation vision introduced in the 2040 Framework. The RTP, last adopted in 2000, is specific about both the levels of transit services to be provided and the mode split targets for communities to use transit and other alternative modes of travel. Jurisdictions, thus, must adopt Transportation Systems Plans (TSPs), which demonstrate the means by which they expect to achieve the mode split targets. Tri-Met is a necessary partner in both the formulation and execution of these plans. Jurisdictions and Tri-Met must work together to define transit priority corridors, traffic management tools and streetscape improvements that will encourage reduced reliance on the single-occupant vehicle. This partnership is also critical to encourage land uses along transit corridors (Transit Oriented Development or TOD) that take advantage of the public investment in transit services. 2. Tri-Met partners to improve other jurisdictions projects Tri-Met Project Planning staff is available to provide support for jurisdictional planning efforts that have transportation elements. Town center plans, corridor development, streetscape improvement plans, street-widening projects, traffic calming plans and TSP development are a few examples of planning and implementation efforts that can benefit from Tri-Met input. Jurisdictional plans that recognize, coordinate with or incorporate Tri-Met service and capital improvement plans will likely result in better transportation and transit products. 3. Jurisdictions partner with Tri-Met to improve transit projects Project Planning also invites key jurisdictional staff to be part of Tri-Met project teams. Their support and input is critical to the success of Tri-Met projects as well. The cooperation amongst jurisdictional partners influences key planning decisions, facilitates key design elements, promotes simplified permitting and improves interagency communication. 4. Improving coordination through IGAs and MOUs Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA) and Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) are documents that recognize project and program partnerships. Tri-Met and the City of Portland have developed several IGAs that have greatly improved Tri-Met's ability to provide accessibility and comfort to neighborhood bus stops. For example, a carriage walk agreement between Project Planning and the Bureau of Maintenance has allowed the agencies to coordinate bus stop accessibility improvements, like ADA landing pads and curb ramps, with the city's own efforts to upgrade the pedestrian infrastructure with curb ramps and accessible sidewalks. A bus shelter siting agreement has allowed Tri-Met and the City to simplify the siting and permitting process, putting amenities on the street more quickly. Tri-Met continues to pursue agreements like these with its regional partners to make better and more efficient use of available funding, and to provide timely, coordinated projects. ENE= V. Bus Stop Development Projects Tri-Met initiates capital projects to make significant improvements to route efficiency, on street and bus stop safety, accessibility and comfort. Tri-Met utilizes the tools and methodology introduced in these guidelines to provide an improved product that integrates with existing transit service. Following are recent or current capital projects, their intent and their effect. Low Floor Bus 1996-2010 INITIATED: 1996 with the purchase of Tri-Met's first low floor buses and the commitment to replace all high floor buses by 2010. COMPLETED: Ongoing -will be completed when every bus line utilizing low floor buses has received low floor bus wayside improvements. F+4 STATUS 2000: Lines 4, 8, 15, 19, 33, 54, 56,72 and 75 have received wayside improvements. Q PRIMARY GOAL: To significantly improve patron accessibility and safety at bus stops at impacted stops on appropriate routes. TARGET: Functional accessibility at 70% of selected route's bus stops. ADA accessibility at 50% of selected route's bus stops. PRIMARY TOOLS: 1. Bus stop relocation, consolidation and removal 2. Bus zones and parking restrictions 3. Curb ramps 4. ADA and rear landing pads 5. New poles and signs 6. Limited amenities (benches, shelters and trash cans) i i 3 a a Streamline 1999-2005 INITIATED: 1999 with the release of the 99/00 Capital budget. COMPLETED: Ongoing - currently five lines have been selected to receive Streamline treatment. STATUS 2000: Lines 4, 72 and 12 are in the process of receiving Streamline improvements. PRIMARY GOAL: To improve bus service reliability and reduce travel time while also improving patron safety, accessibility and comfort on selected routes. TARGETS: Reduce travel time to significantly impact riders' perception of timesavings. Reduce resources necessary to operate service at current frequency. PRIMARY TOOLS: 1. Traffic signal transit priority treatments 2. Roadway treatments (bus only lanes, queue jump and bypass lanes, curb extensions, turning radius improvements, lane adjustments etc.) 3. Bus stop relocation, consolidation and removal 4. Bus zones and parking restrictions 5. Curb ramps 6. ADA and rear door pads 7. New poles and signs 8. Amenities improvements -benches, shelters, trash cans, lighting 9. Route simplification Bus Slielter Expansion 2000 INITIATED: 2000 with a public announcement of the placement of 100 new bus shelters during FY 2000/2001. COMPLETED: Ongoing - current plan to continue until 500 new shelters have been placed. STATUS 2000: Underway-will site, permit, construct pads for and place shelters at 100 p new sites by July 2001. PRIMARY GOAL: To improve patron comfort at bus stops currently lacking shelter. Upgrading accessibility if needed. TARGET: Meet primary goal. V PRIMARY TOOLS: 1. Bus shelters 2. Bus shelter pads 3. Curb ramps ®0 4. ADA and rear landing pads 5. New poles and signs 6. Bus zones and parking restrictions 7. Limited additional amenities (trash cans, lighting, BCIDs) imam Bus Shelter Advertising Program INITIATED: 1999-2000 with the permitting and placement of 50 ad shelters. o~ COMPLETED: Ongoing ~ STATUS 2000: Currently permitting and siting 100 ad shelters in FY 2000. Piz PRIMARY GOAL: To offset the cost of improving, upgrading and maintaining first class bus stops and amenities programs. TARGETS: Provide accessible, safe, lighted, covered bus stops at more locations. PRIMARY TOOLS: 1. Amenities improvements -benches, shelters, trash cans, lighting, real time information 2. Bus shelter electrification ~i 3. Potential enhanced cleaning and maintenance rotation COO) 4. Bus stop relocation, consolidation and removal 5. Bus zones and parking restrictions 6. Curb ramps p~q 7. ADA and rear door pads h~ 8. New poles and signs VI. Maintenance Standards A. Introduction On-street amenities provide an opportunity for increased transit use, improved efficiency of transit operations and capital improvements that enhance the communities in which they are located. Maintenance of these amenities accommodates the needs of passengers, transit operations and adjacent property owners. The perception, utilization and public support for public transit are in large measure predicated on the condition in which transit amenities are maintained. Over 214,000 passengers use Tri-Met on a daily basis. Facilities Management intends to provide passenger areas that will not only make transit a pleasurable experience for them but also increase the number of riders using these amenities. B. Goal The goal is to provide Tri-Met's service district with consistent, high-quality bus stop and passenger facilities at all times. C. Description of Tri-Met Maintained Amenities Tri-Met bus stops include at minimum a bus stop sign with the following potential enhancements: • Bus stop pole (Tri-Met owned) • ADA landing pad • Bus shelter and bench • BCID • Premium bench • Trash can D. Standards Highest consideration shall be given to the safety, comfort and convenience of transit passengers. Impacts to the adjacent property owner(s) are also given consideration. All maintenance activities shall maximize safety and minimize disruption to the community, transit passengers and transit operations. Tri-Met's cleaning and maintenance of amenities shall be avoided during passenger rush hours. Vehicles shall not impede passenger boarding areas or impede normal traffic flow. All employees or contractors shall be professional and courteous at all times. E. Routine Maintenance The following standards shall be used by Tri-Met in evaluating maintenance services in order to provide a safe, clean and attractive passenger environment. Definition of a clean bus stop: • free from debris, e.g., cigarette butts, cups, newspapers, etc. • free from foreign substances, e.g., gum, spills, food, etc. • free from insects and weeds • free from graffiti (written or etched) • free from unauthorized stickers or posters Definition of a well-maintained bus stop: • overall passenger facilities in good repair • areas and improvements are in good condition and all repairs are current • all amenities (e.g., shelters, benches, trash receptacles) are properly installed to meet the requirements of city ordinances and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) • furniture surfaces are in good condition, e.g., no rust, marring, scratches, etc. • signage, walls, seating and kiosks are in good condition • lighting in good working order at all times • free from overhanging trees or brush Guideline for repair & maintenance: • Repairs are performed by both in-house employees and contractors. Guidelines for cleaning: • Pick-up trash and debris within a 15' radius of bus stop areas (blowers shall not be used). • Remove graffiti, stickers and unauthorized signs and posters. • Power wash all amenities with water. Using a ladder, clean the shelter roof inside and outside with a soft bristled brush until all dirt has been removed. Clean and flush gutters and drain holes of all debris. Clean the shelter frame, bench and windows (inside and outside) until all dirt has been removed using soft bristled brush and pressure washer. Dry windows with a squeegee so that no smears or streaks remain visible. Wipe benches completely dry after cleaning or graffiti removal to allow immediate customer use and to prevent claims for damaged clothing. F. Emergency Cleaning All emergency cleanings shall be completed within four (4) hours of notification, except broken glass, which shall be replaced within two (2) hours of notification. G. Waste Disposal Trash in and around shelters and stops gets collected and disposed of in various ways. Whenever possible, Tri-Met seeks sponsors to assist with the growing trash problem. In most cases, Tri-Met provides the trash receptacle at a particular shelter. The sponsor collects and disposes of the trash as needed. A plaque on the trash can denotes the sponsor's name. Tri-Met maintains the trash can by providing the liner insert, and repairs and repaints (due to graffiti) on an as- needed basis. For locations without sponsors, Tri-Met has its own in-house trash collection crew currently consisting of two (2) employees and one (1) trash dump truck. The crew follows a regular route schedule and also assists in emergency trash pick up as needed. When a sponsor neglects a trash can due to moving, vacation, etc., the crew assists until another sponsor is found. Trash collected by Tri-Met is compacted in the dump truck and taken to a Metro collection site as needed. Metro currently provides vouchers to Tri-Met for no-cost disposal. H. Anti-Litter and Graffiti Pro rg ams Tri-Met partners with SOLV to provide anti-litter and graffiti programs, in addition to the regular maintenance routines described above. The SOLV program consists of three major components: • Adopt-A-Stop: Please see Section IV, Part A Citizen Involvement. o Keep-A-Can: Please see Section IV, Part A Citizen Involvement. • First Step Youth Program: During the summer, SOLV and Tri-Met organize groups of at-risk students to clean up street litter and graffiti, focusing on Tri-Met transit corridors. Tri-Met provides group payment, supervision and transportation. I. Bus Stop Amenities Replacement Bus stop features are replaced as a result of accidents, vandalism or general wear over time. Regular maintenance will extend the life of bus shelters and other bus stop features, but their replacement is eventually required. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) identifies the following criteria for the replacement of bus stop shelters: • condition compromises customer safety • exceeds a 15-year life cycle o customer security is in some way compromised • parts for repair and maintenance are no longer available o the shelter is not in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act A bus shelter replacement schedule is shown in Table 4 of the CIP. Bus stop signs are similarly replaced if they pose a safety concern for bus riders; they have been damaged or vandalized; they impede movement in conflict with ADA guidelines or exceed an 8-year life cycle. Bus stop features may be in good condition beyond their expected life in which case replacement would be deferred. Signs, shelters and other amenities may be upgraded or moved to reflect changes in bus stop use or coordination with other development projects. r~ N Boom t • na+.er VII. Organizational Support A. The Bus Stops Management Section Primary responsibility and accountability for bus stops - their design, placement, shelters and other amenities - lies with the Bus Stops Management Section of the Project Planning Department. This seven-person section works closely with other Tri-Met departments to provide for the regular maintenance and management of bus stops as well as implementation of bus stop development programs. Following is a brief description of the Section's positions and their responsibilities. Programs Manager: Responsible for developing and implementing a 5-year Bus Stops Management and Development Plan, which includes negotiating agreements with each major jurisdiction. The Manager is also responsible for coordinating programs and managing the department and program budgets and contracts. The Bus Stops Management Section, including positions matrixed from other departments, report directly to the Programs Manager for bus stops program related activities. Development Coordinator: The central, internal contact point for bus stops and shelters. This position reports directly to the Programs Manager and is responsible for field checks and sign placement. The Development Coordinator also prepares work orders, reviews Customer Service Inquiries (CSIs) and other requests associated with bus stops and shelters. Maintenance Supervisor: Assesses and manages the cleaning and repair needs and contracts and is responsible for quality control for these efforts. This position performs hands-on supervision of field maintenance personnel and may perform field checks for quality, accuracy and timeliness of services provided. This person also monitors partnership agreements for the servicing of bus stops, shelters and trash receptacles. For ease of managing field personnel, the Maintenance Supervisor has a dual location between the Facilities Management Department and the Bus Stops Section and reports to the Facilities Management Department. Engineer I: Works closely with all members of the section but also reports to the Project Implementation Department within the Capital Projects and Facilities Division. Using Tri-Met and jurisdiction standards, the Engineer I prepares design and construction drawings for all bus stop improvements. The Engineer I orders utility checks, works with jurisdictions regarding joint construction or traffic management issues, establishes specifications for procurement contracts of bus stop shelters, signs and other amenities and oversees their installation. These efforts will require working closely with the Planner II, Development Coordinator and Maintenance Supervisor. Planner II: Works with the Programs Manager to develop and update the 5-year Bus Stops Management and Development Plan. This position prepares conceptual designs for bus stop improvements and identifies right-of-way and permit requirements for new or modified stops. The Planner II also conducts development reviews with respect to inclusion of bus stop facilities and coordinates programs with other jurisdictions, developers and other Tri-Met units. Planner/Analyst: Responsible for building and maintaining Tri-Met's central bus stops database. This position is a significant resource for the planning, analysis and GIS mapping of bus stops and supporting information. The Planner/Analyst uses a Global Positioning System locator device to accurately locate bus stops within the geographic information system files. This person also prepares status and performance reports to track cleaning, repair, response to complaints and work orders. When support is needed, the Planner/Analyst may also be called on to assist with field investigations. Community Relations Specialist: Assigned from the Community Relations Department to the Section to serve as a central point of contact for all external, bus stop related inquiries. Working with the Section, this person tracks and responds to CSI inquiries from the general public. This person I pi q; iq I i III 111111111111 ill 13 1111111 also prepares mailings and notices for bus stop changes and sets up and supports community meetings pertaining to bus stop programs. B. Interdepartmental Involvement Overall responsibility for bus stops management resides with the Bus Stops Section. However, some issues require review and input from a broad cross-section of Tri-Met divisions. • The Service Planning Department, in concert with the Scheduling Department, determines routes and the type of services to be provided along the routes. These have a direct bearing on the location and design of bus stops. 0 The Road Operations Supervisors are in the best position to identify bus stop problems and operational concerns that influence bus stop placement. Road Supervisors request bus stop changes based on field observations and as required to accommodate construction projects or events that cause the realignment of service. They also temporarily reroute service when bus stops are affected by construction activities. Road Supervisors also receive customer comments in the course of their surveillance activities. Similarly, Bus Operators also pass on issues that they identify or comments from their bus riders. • Maintenance Technicians in the Facilities Management Department repair and maintain stops and shelters. Maintenance technicians also receive customer comments in the course of their activities, which are managed within their group or passed to the Bus Stops Section. • The Information Development Department of the Marketing and Customer Service Division prepares specifications for signage and information displays and determines locations for other customer information. The Marketing Department manages the shelter and bench advertising programs. Individual requests and needs for bus stop changes funnel through the Customer Service Department and are recorded in a Customer Service Inquiry database, which is accessed by the Bus Stops Management Section for research and response. Employer outreach efforts conducted by the Marketing Department provide input for program development. • Corridor and route-specific projects, which may include bus stop improvements, are managed by the Capital Projects Section within the Project Planning Department. • The Land Development Section, within the Project Planning Department, provides assistance with the coordination with public and private development and review of those projects. • Tri-Met's Committee on Accessible Transportation (CAT) provides a very important consultative role in the management of bus stops. This committee comments on bus stop design guidelines and the development of standard bus stop features (e.g., bus stop shelter design). This perspective helps to assure compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and helps set i priorities for bus stop development programs. i o In addition to the matrixed engineering support, other services are needed on a case-by-case basis from the Project Implementation Department. Project Implementation staff also provide information on construction and contract standards. The CADD section ensures drawings are properly prepared and updated. 3 a C The Public Art Program also provides input for integrating art into bus stop design and in identifying opportunities for unique art projects associated with bus stops. 0 Other groups are linked through the internal coordination plan and include Safety, Training, and Real Property. C. Bus Stops Section Development Process The processes for the development of bus stops may be summarized as follows: Policy development process: • Set vision and direction • Establish standards and guidelines • Establish priorities • Identify funding needs and sources • Determine ways to do business, e.g., partnerships Plan development process: • Develop Bus Stop Management Plan 0 5-year plan (vision and needs with first year detail) o Include capital budget plus maintenance/operating costs o Include IGAs for each jurisdiction • Perform outreach check o Interactive with plan devclopment • Solicit review - gain approvals o Key five inter-organizational linkages o Finance o Leadership Group o Board of Directors Implementation plan process: • Develop scope, schedule, budget for each program including outreach • Identify resources (both funding and people) • Determine needed contracts • Identify and schedule needed permits o IGA requirements o Rights of way o Private property siting agreements/easements • Permits centralized within the Bus Stop Section • Coordinate and manage implementation • Evaluate programs and processes Construction: • Develop field drawings for candidate sites, include digital pictures • Prepare CADD drawings • Consult with private property owners as required • Determine and procure necessary permits • Select contractor (on-call or bid) • Inform Information Development (IDP), Facilities Management, and Marketing (advertising) of proposed changes • Construction of site begins o Inspection and digital documentation is performed by the Bus Stops Engineer I o Notify Road Operations of completion • Prepare and submit data updates D. Operations and Maintenance Road Operations and maintenance technicians provide daily information regarding bus stop and shelter conditions. Customers regularly request new bus stops and comment on bus stop conditions or issues. This information will funnel through the Customer Service group. Business and property =III N'M MEN owners identify specific issues with regard to bus stops and shelters located on or near their property. The bus stop maintenance process may be described as follows: • Define maintenance standards per program plan • Develop 5-year plan o Priorities o Timelines o Preventative/responsive budgets o Contract needs and other resources • Implementation plan o Contract management o Quality control o Data o Tracking • Evaluation o Inputs • Customer Service Inquiry (CSI) complaints [external feedback] • Emergency call outs • Standards being met • Internal feedback Work order process: • The Bus Stops Development Coordinator creates work orders based on a variety of sources/inputs: o Operations - Field Reports o Customer Service - CSIs o Maintenance - Field Reports o Other- Project Planning, other internal requests, etc. • The work order goes directly to a single database system o Check the Location ID o Provide Road Operations notice of pending action(s) o Bundle work orders where possible - assign to maintenance staff or contractor • Track work orders via the database/work order program • Review and comments from Road Operations • Quality control/inspection performed by Bus Stops Section • The master data files are updated when the work order is closed ~J 6 tamer VYII. Program Support (Funding) Approach Identify innovative ways to finance and maintain bus stop program initiatives that help offset program costs. Tools Advertising-Advertising remains an effective and popular tool for offsetting various program costs. Tri-Met's most visible and successful advertising ventures may be the bus and MAX vehicle advertising programs; however, Tri-Met has also established or is pursuing advertising programs at bus stops and bus facilities: • Ad shelters: An advertising component can be attached to a standard B shelter. This component allows for the placement of two 4' x 7' advertisements. Revenues accrue on a monthly basis and are directly dependent on the number of ads placed within the system. • Ad benches: A basic transit bench with an advertising component attached to the back. Benches can be placed where a bus stop is located and where sufficient room exits. Revenues are dependent on the number of benches placed in the service area and are generated on a monthly basis. • Other ad kiosks: There are additional advertising opportunities at bus stops and bus shelters. Advertising kiosks can be placed on telephones, sidewalks and on bus stop poles. Partnerships-The use of non-profit or public agencies to assist in daily bus stop maintenance and graffiti removal can be an effective and cost saving tool. Current Tri-Met programs are: • Anti-litter and graffiti programs: Please see Section IV, Part A Citizen Involvement and Section VI, Part H Anti-Litter and Graffiti Programs for more information. • Public volunteers: Tri-Met works with local volunteers to identify safety hazards, potential improvements and maintenance deficiencies. Utilizing volunteers enables Tri-Met to improve the transit system with little or no cost incurred. • Leveraeine: The use of leveraging enables Tri-Met to add amenities in the system while reducing the long-term cost of project implementation. As an example, before transit improvements are made, Tri-Met searches for commitments from the community or local businesses to provide basic shelter maintenance and cleaning. If a commitment is made, Tri- Met can expedite the placement of these amenities. • Jurisdictional/local programs: Grant opportunities targeting on-street or transit opportunities are available to jurisdictions. Transportation System Management grants, for example, can be used for bus stop and roadway improvements. Tri-Met can partner with jurisdictions to locate potential sites and provide design support for bus stop improvements. Federal, State and local funding sources-Additional monies can be obtained through seeking out various Federal, State and local funding opportunities. Cost efficiencies-Tri-Met actively looks for opportunities to save costs on the production, placement and installation of bus stops and amenities. Some useful opportunities are: • Standardization: Providing consistencies in materials and supplies allow's for bulk rate cost savings. • Less expensive materials: Substantial cost savings can be realized by discovering less expensive materials that have similar aesthetics and durability (e.g., shelter glass). • Development review: Please see Section IV, Part B Development Review. • Joint development/pedestrian to transit programs: Tri-Met works in conjunction with local cities and jurisdictions on joint development projects. Asa cost saving opportunity, Tri-Met and the jurisdiction assign various work responsibilities to the agency who can perform the task at a less expensive rate. For example, on several joint development projects with the City of Portland, Tri-Met has utilized the Bureau of Maintenance (BOM) to perform any twier necessary construction work as Tri-Met performs other in-kind services. The BOM can perform infrastructure improvements at a much lower cost than Tri-Met can contract out for. What to do Each funding source and cost efficiency has a differing effectiveness based on individual circumstances. Therefore, each opportunity should be evaluated independently. Analysis could include: • potential revenue gain versus capital investment • feasibility of project implementation • benefit to transit system Things to consider Every cost offsetting opportunity presents a unique list of issues. The following is a checklist of the most important considerations: Advertising ❑ Placement limitations ❑ Capital investment (ad components, electrification) versus potential revenues gained ❑ Pedestrian safety ❑ ADA accessibility ❑ Aesthetic impact on environment ❑ Market feasibility ❑ Ad types Partnerships ❑ Tradeoff costs ■ Contract monitoring commitments ■ Program requirements, commitments Federal, State and local funding sources ❑ Local match requirements ❑ Project implementation and feasibility Cost efficiencies ❑ Public safety ❑ Increase in reliability ❑ Tradeoff costs Attachment 4 3.4 Approve Budget Amendment ##6 to the Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Adopted Budget to Transfer Funds from the Public Works Operating Appropriation to the General Fund Capital Improvement Program Appropriation to Allow the Replacement of the HVAC Units in the Police Building - Resolution No. 01 -03 3.5 Appoint Sydney Sherwood and Irene Moszer to the Budget Committee - Resolution No. 01 - 04 3.6 Local Contract Review Board a. Approve purchase of a Dynapac model CC 122 vibratory roller b. Approve purchase of replacement combination sewer cleaner c. Approve award of the contract for appraisal and land acquisition services for the Gaarde Street Improvements Phase 2 project to Universal Field Services, Inc. The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present: Mayor Griffith Yes Councilor Dirksen Yes Councilor Moore Yes Councilor Patton Yes Councilor Scheckla Yes 4. INTRODUCTION OF SYDNEY SHERWOOD AND IRENE MOSZER AS BUDGET COMMITTEE MEMBERS Mayor Griffith introduced Ms. Sherwood and Ms Moszer. 5. RECEIVE GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA (GFOA) CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR FINANCIAL REPORTING ® Finance Director Craig Prosser introduced Wayne Lowry, the Washington County Finance Officer and an offcer of the GFOA. Mr. Lowry presented the 1999 certificate of achievement for financial reporting and noted the City of Tigard has received this award for the last 18 years. ' 6. DISCUSSION OF TRI-MET SERVICE CHANGES { a. Community Development Director introduced representatives from Tri-Met: Mr. Dennis Grimmer and Mr. Alan Lehto. Proposed transit improvements were reviewed by the Tri-Met representatives, including merging of lines and ' converting to an express line where there are 14 stops between Sherwood and a Portland. One line will provide service to Tigard every 15 minutes and has been extended to Durham Road. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - February 13, 2001 page 4 l! t 1111: Several open houses sponsored by Tri Met were recently held and information is now being analyzed. Proposals as a result of information received will be available for public review In about two weeks; more public input will be scheduled. Mr. Lehto, the Tri Met Capital Projects Planner referred to a handout distributed to the City Council. (See information on file with the Council packet material.) He reviewed issues of accessibility (ADA), access (bus stops), efficiencies (identifying where delays occur), and amenities (shelters and scheduling information). b. Council Discussion, Questions, Comments Mayor Griffith noted the lack of service on several major Tigard streets, including Durham Road, Gaarde Street, McDonald Street and Walnut Street. He noted that for many Tigard residents, it is more than a quarter of a mile to the nearest bus stop. He said that the City of Beaverton has bus service on almost all of their major streets yet Tigard has service on only three of its major streets. The Bull Mountain area has no bus service. Mr. Grimmer referred to a recent grant offering van services in some municipalities. He noted such a service on Line 62, which serves Murray Boulevard, Scholls Ferry Road, and Washington Square. Councilor Dirksen asked several questions about the proposed Route 12. He noted he used to use the bus service on a daily basis and found that it was faster to use the 96x (Barbur Boulevard) line. Many people would probably be willing to take a bus downtown but not if it is necessary to drive to a bus stop. Councilor Scheckla asked Tri Met to consider smaller busses to provide intra- city service to the suburban cities. In addition, he suggested that Tri Met work with businesses to promote bus ridership. Councilor Patton agreed with comments made by the other Council members and advised that she also used to frequently use the bus system. She said that Tri Met's service to the City of Tigard is lacking when compared to the service available to the neighboring cities of Hillsboro and Beaverton. She noted her frustration that the citizens of Tigard are not receiving a satisfactory level of bus service, yet, the City of Tigard contributes a significant amount of money to Tri Met. She noted the new proposals for service outlined by the representatives here tonight still do not give commuters a place to park. Tri TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - February 13, 2001 page 5 Met needs to give people the ability to use the system. Bus service Is not an amenity; it Is a critical service. Councilor Moore agreed with the comments made above on the bus service situation In Tigard. He asked Tri Met officials to exercise due diligence in providing service to the City of Tigard. City Manager Monahan advised he would follow up with a letter to the Tri Met General Manager reiterating the concerns and Issues brought out by the City Council. 7. INFORMATIONAL PUBLIC HEARING - FORMATION OF SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 19 - SW HUNZIKER a. Mayor Griffith opened the public hearing. b. Project Engineer Berry reviewed the staff report that is on file with the Council packet materials. He noted that the district would consist of one lot, which . was the last lot along Hunziker that did not have sewer service. C. Public Testimony Mr. John Annand, 8260 SW Hunziker, Tigard, Oregon, advised he is the property owner. His business has been at this address since 1984 and said he would appreciate it if he could hook up to the sewer. d. Mr. Bert' advised staff recommended that the Council approve the formation of Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement No. 19 - SW Hunziker. e. Mayor Griffith closed the public hearing. f. Motion by Councilor Scheckla, seconded by Councilor Dirksen, to adopt Resolution No. 01-05. RESOLUTION NO. 01-05 - A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT DISTRICT NO. 19 (SW HUNZIKER STREET) The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of Council present: Mayor Griffith Yes Councilor Dirksen Yes Councilor Moore Yes Councilor Patton Yes Councilor Scheckla Yes 8. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH THE TRANSPORTATION FINANCING STRATEGIES TASK FORCE TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - February 13, 2001 page 6 1 MMMMJ " 7. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN DISCUSSION Attachment 5 Community Development Director Jim Hendryx, Associate Planner Julia Hajduk and Randy McCourt of DKS consulting provided highlights of the Transportation System Plan (TSP) prepared by DKS Associates. Ms. Hajduk gave a brief history of the TSP, and introduced Randy McCourt. Mr. McCourt stated the TSP represents a transportation forecast for the next 20 years and identifies transportation issues that will need to be addressed. He gave a PowerPoint presentation, illustrating highlights of the TSP. The presentation can be found at the beginning of the TSP booklet, which is on file with the City Recorder's Office. Ms. Hajduk directed Council's attention to Attachment 2, page 15. She stated everything after comment 94 was additional input received after the Planning Commission meeting. Items prior to comment 94 were either from the Planning Commission meeting or revised after the Planning Commission gave direction. Rather than creating several draft versions of the TSP, the comment log reflects will serve as an addendum record of the TSP. If the Council has concerns with items in the log, those should be noted, as the Council will be asked to adopt the comment log at the same time they are asked to approve the TSP. Ms. Hajduk and Mr. McCourt discussed the organization of the log and comments recorded therein. Mr. McCourt stated that once approved, the comment log and the TSP will be combined into a single document. Mr. McCourt described how "capacity" was determined in the report, and summarized Metro's comments. Councilor Dirksen confirmed Metro had no major concerns with the Plan. Mayor Griffith directed the Council's attention to Figure 7-2, "Future Transit Service." The Mayor indicated that Tri-Met has stated bus service should be within a quarter-mile of all residents. The service area shown in the Figure does not come close to meeting this standard. Mr. McCourt concurred with the Mayor's observation and indicated that his company identified Durham and Barrows as two areas that were lacking adequate transit service. Mayor Griffith suggested that the following areas are also under served: • 72"d /Sequoia/Tigard Triangle area • 1351/North Dakota • Bonita The Mayor stated that many entry-level positions exist in the 72nd area, yet transit service is lacking. This results in the exclusion of an entire segment of TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - March 20, 2001 Page 6 potential employees from this employment market. Councilor Dirksen added that what transit service does exist on 72"d does not offer connectivity. The Mayor continued by saying many low-income residents who are unable to afford cars live along Bonita Road. Transit service is their only mode of transportation, but this area is also poorly served. Councilor Patton asserted that the emphasis had been on commuters and did not focus on transit within the City. She explained that it is difficult to get to bus routes. The Council expressed its concern that Tigard is not getting its fair share of transit funding from Tri-Met. Mr. Hendryx related that the Council had been working with Tri-Met to improve transit service within Tigard, and Council was expressing their concern that the TSP not undermine their efforts. Mr. McCourt suggested that some of the routes proposed by the Council might become extensions of existing routes. He also indicated he would review the methods used to evaluate transit in Tigard. In response to a question from Mayor Griffith, Ms. Hajduk commented that the next step would be to hold a public hearing and ask Council to adopt the Plan. It was noted that the City Attorney has indicated that the TSP is "high risk" with regard to Measure 7. Ms. Hajduk questioned what may happen if the Plan is approved, but the codes are not implemented. Mr. Monahan recommended that staff continue to fine-tune the Plan by incorporating the Council's input. The City Attorney will be asked for recommendations on how to proceed In light of Measure 7. With regard to the timeline, Mr. McCourt stated the Plan should be adopted by August 2001. He pointed out other cities have similar plans and would be at the same risk for ramifications from Measure 7. Mr. Monahan responded that the Plan adoption could be crafted in such a way as to avert Measure 7 conflicts. In the final comments, Councilor Dirksen suggested that Durham, 135' and 72"d would be his recommendations for expanded transit service. 8. CONTINUE COUNCIL DISCUSSION ON STUDY MEETINGS Councilor Patton began the discussion by saying she was uncomfortable that all members of Council were not participating in study meetings. She asserted absences from this portion of the meeting resulted in staff having to duplicate information. She stressed the Council should be functioning as a team and following the majority vote. As indicated in the Council's Groundrules, if any member of the Council determines that a study meeting discussion was improper, they can stop the discussion. Councilor Patton stated that she TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - March 20, 2001 Page 7 Attachment 6 Special Meeting of Tigard City Council & Representatives of Tri-Met CITY OF TIGARD April 19, 2001 Red Rock Creek Conference Room MEETING MINUTES The meeting was scheduled for 8:00 a.m. on Thursday, April 19, in the Town Hall. Due to the set up of the council chambers, the meeting was relocated to the Red Rock Creek Conference Room. In attendance: Tigard City Council: Mayor Jim Griffith, Councilor Joyce Patton, Councilor Craig Dirksen, and Councilor Ken Scheckia Representing Tri-Met: Fred Hansen, General Manager, Dick Feeney, Executive Director of Governmental Affairs, Lynn Peterson, Strategic Planning Manager, Brent Ward, Outreach Representative, and Ken Zatarain, Director of Transportation Planning Tigard Staff: Jim Hendryx and Julia Hajduk of Community Development, and Bill Monahan Joyce Patton opened the meeting by emphasizing the earlier comments which she gave to the Tri-Met Board the prior week. She emphasized the need for intra-city bus service, primarily to serve the elderly community and lower income population. She emphasized that these segments of our population need to be able to get around the community to work in commercial centers as well as in industrial areas. Discussion took place about the city's needs as well as some of the developing issues in the community. Jim Hendryx pointed out that recently Greyhound Bus Lines discontinued service in the City of Tigard. Dick Feeney questioned whether the Oregon Transit Network could assist Greyhound. Trl- Met could bring the issue up at the Transit Division of ODOT and ask that contact be made with Greyhound. Some discussion centered on the plans that Tri-Met has for making improvements to the system. Among the improvements suggested was installation of more bus shelters within Tri-Met communities. We suggested the need for a shelter for Hall Boulevard at Bonita TIGARD SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 19, 2001 Page 11 Road. It was noted that within our Transportation System Plan we should put priority for shelters, this would assist us in applications for Tri-Met funding. In response to a question of how we can suggest shelters for Tigard, Tri-Met responded that Mark Pula (a person who Brent Ward can get us in touch with) is working on this project. The threshold is that there be 35 boarding rides or greater or "you need circumstances in the area to justify a shelter." In addition, Fred Hansen noted that it is important that sidewalks be available for access to shelters. Fred also pointed out that Gresham is working with Tri-Met to partner to put more shelters in place. We could do the same. Tri-Met then reported on some of the other plans that are underway, including expanding Line #62, making Line #55 have service at 15 minute intervals every day, expanding "jobs access" idea into Tigard, and to carry out the 2040 initiative. Discussion then centered on an April 13, 2001, memo prepared by Julia Hajduk that shows the Tri-Met coverage areas. This is a comparison of Beaverton's existing Transportation System Plan and Transit Coverage along with a pair of maps pertaining to Tigard. One map is existing Tigard coverage, the other is future transit service. Following discussion of the maps, discussion centered on "What can occur now?," What can Tigard do to plug into Tri-Met's planning?" For the short-term, for September 2001, Tri-Met again noted that the Portland-Tigard service on Line 12 will be improved to every 15 minutes. In addition, service to Sherwood will change from once every hour to once every half-hour. Tri-Met committed to work with us to identify the priority areas for our service needs. We suggested there is presently limited service to the 72nd Avenue area, a prime job location. Presently, the service only takes riders to Lake Oswego. It was suggested that we need to decide if the 72n1 line should tie into our transit center group. Participants in the meeting also noted that there should be emphasis on the commuter rail opening and the opportunities for tying transit service into that event. On the capital side, our staff will work with Tri-Met staff to suggest bus stops and Park and Ride locations. Lynn Peterson suggested that we work with her to make suggestions to developers so they consider transit in their planning. It was agreed that the Community Development staff will set up a meeting with Brent Ward, Ken Zatarain, and Lynn to follow-up on items discussed in the meeting. Fred suggested that there be a joint planning effort for a transit strategy for the next 5-10 years in the Tigard service area. All participants agreed with this approach. Bill requested that Tri-Met respond to requests made earlier at the Tri-Met Open House and within Councilor Patton's comments on April 4 and within the letter of April 10. The next question posed is: "What do Tigard's payroll taxes, ridership, and service for the present fiscal year show?" A fiscal year 1997 table is the last table available to the city. Bill L~~TIGARD SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -APRIL 19, 2001 Page 2 asked Tri-Met staff to provide more up-to-date information along with analysis so the city can evaluate whether it is receiving suitable service for the taxes paid from payroll taxes as well as self-employment taxes within the community. Fred Hansen noted that Tri-Met recognizes the city needs. The meeting adjourned at 9:10 a.m. City Manager, William A. Monahan Attest: Mayor, City of Tigard Date: 1AADMITRI-MMMINUTES 4-19-01MOC TIGARD SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 19, 2001 Page 3 AGENDA ITEM # 3 FOR AGENDA OF June 19, 2001 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Update on Bull Mountain Annexation Work Plan and Study, PREPARED BY: Julia Hajduk DEPT HEAD OK /4(iW41TY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Listen to update and provide staff with any comments/suggestions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Not applicable as this is an update only. INFORMATION SUMMARY At the March 20, 2001 City Council work session, Council directed staff to move forward with reviewing the possibilities of annexing the Bull Mountain area. In order to do this, a study is necessary which will provide staff and Council information to determine whether it is in the community's best interest to continue to move forward with annexing this area. At the April 24, 2001 City Council meeting, Council endorsed the work plan and study scope by approving the consent agenda item (copy of work plan and study scope is attached as Attachments 1 & 2). Staff has completed several tasks outlined in the work plan including defining the details of the study (as detailed in the scope of study), hiring an intern, and meeting with Washington County staff. Tigard Staff and Washington County staff met on May 14, 2001. There appears to be support from Washington County to undertake this effort. As a result of the meeting, it was decided that a focus group meeting with active community members would be helpful to bring the issue up to residents and gather information from them to help us in preparing a study and plan. Staff is planning a focus group meeting of approximately 100 property owners and residents. We are in the process of identifying active community members by utilizing CPO memberships, Neighborhood Organizations, etc. These individuals will be invited to attend and encouraged to bring their neighbors. The idea is to get people who have been active in their community because these people will have a feel for the issues and concerns of their neighborhood. We will briefly inform them of the study to consider annexation and use most of the time to ask them for input and suggestions to be sure our study adequately looks at and addresses the needs and concerns of the Bull Mountain residents. The focus group meeting is scheduled for July 26, 2001. The time and location have not been confirmed yet, however we will update Council once this information has been determined. All Council members, especially those who live near the Bull Mountain Urban Services area are encouraged to attend. An outline of proposed discus3ion topics is attached as Attachment 3. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Not applicable. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Growth and Growth Management Goal #2, Urban services are provided to all citizens within Tigard's urban growth boundary and recipients of services pay their share. ATTACHMENT LIST Attachment 1: Proposed Work Plan. Attachment 2: Draft Study Scope for Bull Mountain Area. Attachment 3: Draft Outline of Discussion Meeting Topics FISCAL NOTES The Study will be prepared by an intern with assistance from staff. The intern has been proposed in next fiscal year's budget. I:\lrpln\julia\BM annexation update ais2.doc Attachment 1 PROPOSED WORK PLAN LOOKING AT THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN ANNEXING THE UNINCORPORATED BULL MOUNTAIN AREA Month Task April Define details of study and what information needs to be provided. April/May Interview and hire intern. May - July Intern researches and prepares the study document. June/July Staff meets with Washington County to get their input and support on the annexations. July Focus Group Meeting to be held on July 26, 2001 September Once the study is complete, staff holds an initial open house to share study information and get comments and input from citizens in the area before bringing the issue back to the City Council. October Staff presents the. results of the study and the initial open house responses to the City Council at a work session meeting. Council provides direction to staff on whether to proceed with actively seeking annexation. Nov/Dec If Council directs staff to seek annexations, staff will prepare a detailed public outreach plan for City Council comment and approval. I:Irplan/julia/annexation work plan.doc Attachment 2 SCOPE OF STUDY TO EULAUATE ISSUES WITH ANNEXING THE BULL MOUNTAIN AREA Task 1 Define developed and undeveloped areas. Undeveloped areas may be defined as lots large enough to be subdivided and/or vacant properties. Definition must be specific. Task 2 Identify total acreage of developed and undeveloped areas in the Bull Mountain area. Identify the total number of tax lots for each. Provide a list of the tax lots in each area along with the property owner information. Task 3 Define the existing service providers and the services (public facilities) that would be provided by the City. Note any significant differences. This may require breaking the area up into smaller pieces if service levels vary throughout the Bull Mountain area. Task 4 Where the City would be providing new services (public facilities), provide estimates of the cost to provide these services. This will require evaluating developed and undeveloped areas separately. Task 5 Identify existing County tax examples versus City tax examples. Note any significant differences. This will require evaluating developed and undeveloped areas separately. Task 6 Identify public outreach opportunities. Gather contact names and numbers for homeowner associations. Discuss any known obstacles to doing outreach. Provide information on an incremental annexation plan. lArplan/Julia/annexation draft study scope.doc Attachment 3 ANNEXATION FOCUS MEETING Purpose: To share information with key people regarding what we are doing, and why, and to gather information from there which will help us in preparing a study and plan. 1. Identify Why the City is undertaking this effort a. SB122 b. County 2000 Plan C. Council Goals II. Discuss City process and timeline (study scope and work plan, what the next steps are after the study, web page with updates, maybe identify 5 people who can share information to others. III. Identify potential advantages and what City services exist a. Local representation b. More representatives and more responsive c. Police service d. Library services e. Parks f. Streets g. Code Compliance IV. Input on Issues a. What issues/concerns do you think the City should address in its study? b. Are there specific issues based on different areas in Bull Mountain? C. Do you think there is support for annexing all or part of the area? d. What issues do you think the City should focus on? e. What do you think will be effective methods to get public input and give information back to the residents and property owners of the area? f. Names of home owner's associations. I:\curpln\Julia\Annex\Annexation Focus Meeting.doc AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF June 1 9.2001 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE _--Pight-of-Way and Sidewalk Responsibility. PREPARED BY: Christine Darnell and John Rom DEPT HEAD OK }p7 1 Y/ CITY MGR OK VNISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL How are sidewalks and other right-of-way areas going to be maintained within the City of Tigard? STAFF RE OMMENDATION Staff requests direction from Council regarding the direction of right-of-way maintenance. INFORMATION SUMMARY Much of the right-of-way maintenance on various collectors and arterials has been performed by the Public Works Department in the past. This includes 54,089 feet, (approximately 1,100 tax lots), that Public Works will discontinue maintenance upon, thereby reverting the liability of maintenance to property owners, as clearly identified by the Tigard Municipal Code. Property owners may not be aware of their responsibility to maintain portions of the public right-of-way (ROW), including noxious vegetation and sidewalk repair. Returning this responsibility to the property owner requires notifications, public education, and enforcement activities. On August 15, 2000, City Council directed Public Works staff to investigate the costs of assuming responsibility and liability for arterials and/or major collector streets for both sidewalk maintenance and weed/grass mowing and maintenance. On May 14, 2001, the Budget Committee denied funding the right-of-way maintenance program. Staff has evaluated steps to make the public aware of their responsibilities and necessary revisions to the Tigard Municipal Code to clarify responsibilities. The need for temporary help to initiate this approach to right-of-way maintenance will be evaluated throughout the summer. Volunteer assistance will also be considered where appropriate in assisting with public information, etc. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Direct Public Works to provide current level of maintenance. 2. Evaluate Code Enforcement staffing level to assume higher level of enforcement activities associated with right-of-way maintenance. 3. Revise code provisions according to alternatives chosen by the Council. Ecurpin/christine%ouncil for 06-19-01/council agenda item summary 06-19-01 4. Hire a private contractor to perform property owner maintenance requirements that are neglected and billing/placing a lien on property owners. 5. Create citizen awareness of responsibility and public information program. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AMID ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Community Aesthetics "Develop strategies to balance the needs of new and infill development with the need to provide protection of defined aesthetic qualities valued by those who already live and work in Tigard." ATTACHMENT LIST 1. June 6, 2001 memo to Council 2. Applicable codes 3. Current mowing map 4. Proposed increased mowing map 5. Proposed decreased mowing map 6. Minutes, 10-17-00 Council meeting, pages 4 and 5 7. Minutes, 08-15-00 Council meeting pages 7 and 8 8. Memo from Loreen Mills, 10-02-00, on sidewalk liability 9. Memo from Gus Duenas, 05-14-01, Impact of the Enhanced Right-of-Way Maintenance on the Pavement Major Maintenance Program 10. Excerpts from 05-14-01 Budget Committee meeting minutes 11. Minutes, 03-13-01 Council meeting, pages 1 and 2 12. Memo from Public Works on ROW maintenance currently and upcoming 13. Chart of 2000 and 2001 Code Enforcement case types by percentage FISCAL NOTES No additional funds have been budgeted to provide these services. 4 a I:curpln/christine/council for 06-19-01/council agenda item summary 06-19-01 Attachment 7 City of Tigard Community Development Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON 13125 SW Hail Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 (503) 639-4171 Fax 684-7297 TO: Tigard City Council Members FROM: Christine Darnell, Code Compliance Specialist John Roy, Property Manager DATE: June 6, 2001 SUBJECT: Right-of-Way Maintenance Changes Background: The Public Works Department proposed an increase of three staff persons and equipment for additional right-of-way maintenance. This was the result of a City Council direction to investigate the cost of maintaining arterial and collector streets for sidewalks and weed and grass mowing. Additional funding was denied in the budget process. As a result, Public Works was directed to decrease the right-of-way maintenance they perform by approximately 10 of the 18 miles currently maintained. To continue to do mowing and maintenance has become cost prohibitive at the scale that Public Works has been maintaining. As an example, Attachment 1 indicates the cost of maintaining 135th Avenue according to the Public Works figures. The result will be that adjacent property owners will be responsible for maintenance of approximately 10 miles of right-of-way. These new areas of responsibility for property owners are shown on Map Attachment 4. The green indicates areas that will be maintained by the city. The red shows where property owners will be responsible. Page 1 of 4 Attachment 1 Property Owner Responsibility: The Tigard Municipal Code specifically identifies noxious vegetation, vision clearance, street, sidewalk, and right-of-way responsibilities, and identifies the property owner as being responsible for maintenance to property "...which adjoin the public street or public sidewalk, including the adjoining parking strip...". See Sections 7.40.050, 7.40.050, 7.40.070, 10.32.200, 15.12.010, 18.795.030, and 18.810.070. Program Revisions: To be effective, the following needs to be done: ✓ Compile an awareness program to educate the public on new City actions to include some or all of the following: ♦ Newspaper articles Newsletter articles ♦ Community connector information ♦ Web page announcements ♦ CIT topic to educate, involving staff from both the Public Works and Community Development Departments ♦ Brochures e Fliers e Videos Mailers ♦ Counter handouts ♦ Door hangers ✓ Evaluate staffing needs necessary to implement the public awareness program. This will include determining where volunteers can assist. ✓ Re-evaluate the Code to make regulations clearer. ✓ Evaluate more advantageous penalties and fining systems. ✓ Clearly outline the correction, violation, and citation process. a ✓ Establish alternatives for non-compliant and non-collectable properties. ✓ Evaluate the need to hire a contractor to complete City directed maintenance and bill to or lien property owners. Citizens will need to be educated and persuaded to take proper responsibility for their newfound responsibilities. Page 2 of 4 Attachment 1 Code Enforcement Process: If compliance is not achieved by citizens taking responsibility on their own, our current code enforcement procedures will have to be used. Currently, code enforcement is complaint driven. The following outlines the current process: ✓ Complaint is received either over phone or counter regarding noxious vegetation ✓ Code Enforcement responds to complaint by investigating the site ✓ Code Enforcement determines: Conditions not fitting of code violation, case dismissed, or o Conditions warrant further action ✓ Upon finding that the complaint is valid, Code Enforcement: s Pulls legal owner name and address from the tax assessor's records ♦ Compiles "Notice of Correction" including violation and citation of applicable code in violation ® Sends "Notice of Correction" by first class and certified mail o Includes compliance date a minimum of 10 days from day after mailing ♦ Enters case into Tidemark database system for tracking and file maintenance ✓ When compliance date arrives, Code Enforcement re-investigates the case and finds: ♦ Violation remedied • Case closed • Computer notes finished • Hardcopy filed o Violation still present but partially completed • Re-contact offenders with notification of unfinished work a Send both first class mail and certified mail o Extend compliance date based on good faith attempt • Re-inspect at compliance date and repeat closing process e Violation not remedied • Arrange court date • Complete summons • Complete complaint ® Complete findings of fact • Send first class mail and certified mail ® Court cases - await judges decision to see how to proceed • If Code Enforcement prevails, attach fines and obtain judgement • If Offender prevails, re-evaluate case and start over Page 3 of 4 Attachment 1 ✓ The initial compliance process can take anywhere from 17 days if compliance is achieved. ✓ If compliance is not achieved, compliance could take upwards of 31 days or more to resolve through the court systern. ✓ During the entire process, Code Enforcement fields calls from complainants, offenders, and interested or otherwise involved parties, relaying case status, pertinent code information, etc. Example: Recently, property owners on 135th Avenue that were not in compliance with right-of-way maintenance were targeted in an area spanning from Walnut to Scholls Ferry. To obtain compliance from 26 of the property owners in violation (an area of approximately 2,623 feet), approximately 11 hours of staff time were devoted and $140.00 in postage. This includes the original assessment of the street and the properties in non-compliance, the records search and subsequent addressing and mailing of correction notices, inspections, responding to phone-calls as a result of the notices, and re-inspections. This does not include cases still pending citation into court, and the potential for the violations to re-occur. In these cases, the noxious vegetation continues to grow and after a short period of time, grass and weed conditions may again be in violation. In the time specifically allocated to this one street, other Code Enforcement issues fell behind. Public Works maintenance cost for performing right-of-way maintenance on 135th Avenue would run between $2,206 and $4,400 per year depending upon the number of times that maintenance would be required. Code Enforcement's cost for the initial notification of non-r,ompliant parties on 135t' Avenue was in excess of $500. Costs will continue to increase with the re-occurrence of code violations and as such, the repetition of the compliance and citation process. Conclusion: At this point, impacts on Code Enforcement and Public Works are unknown. It is anticipated that initially, considerable effort will be necessary to implement the informational a program and enforcement activities. Consideration of utilizing volunteers to help with the ' informational program will be evaluated. Code Enforcement has little capacity to respond to increased code enforcement caseloads. The effects of the change will have to be monitored over the next few months to assess future staffing and funding needs. s 1Acurp1n\christine\counci1 for 06-19-01\coundi memo new.doc Page 4 of 4 Attachment #2 Applicable Codes 7.40.050 (a) "The term "noxious vegetation" does not include vegetation that constitutes an agricultural crop, unless that vegetation is a health hazard, a fire hazard or a traffic hazard, and it is vegetation within the meaning of subsection (b) of this section." (b) "The term "noxious vegetation" includes" (1) "Weeds more than ten inches high;" (2) "Grass more than ten inches high and not within the exception stated in subsection (a) of this section;" (3) "Poison oak, poison ivy, or similar vegetation;" (4) "Dead trees, dead bushes, stumps, and any other thing likely to cause fire;" (5) "Blackberry bushes that extend into a public thoroughfare or across a property line;" (6) "Vegetation that is a health hazard;" (7) "Vegetation that is a health hazard because it impairs the view of a public thoroughfare or otherwise makes use of the thoroughfare hazardous." (c) "No owner or responsible party shall allow noxious vegetation to be on the property or in the right-of-way of a public thoroughfare abutting on the property. The owner or responsible party shall cut down or destroy grass, shrubbery, brush, bushes, weeds or other noxious vegetation as often as needed to prevent them from becoming unsightly or, in the case of weeds, or other noxious vegetation, from maturing or from going to seed." 7.40.060 "Trees." (a) "No owner or responsible party shall permit tree branches or bushes on the property to extend into a public street or public sidewalk in a manner which interferes with street or sidewalk traffic. It shall be the duty of an owner or responsible party to keep all tree branches or bushes on the premises which adjoin the public street or public sidewalk, including the adjoining parking strip, trimmed to a height of not less that eight feet above the sidewalk and not less than ten feet above the street." (b) "No owner or responsible party shall allow to stand any dead or decaying tree that is in danger of failing or otherwise constitutes a hazard to the public or to persons or property on or near the property. " t 7.40.070 "Streets and sidewalks. The owner or responsible party shall keep a public street and / or sidewalk abutting their property free from earth, rock and other debris and other objects that may obstruct or render the street or sidewalk unsafe for its intended use." 10.32.200 "Obstructing streets. Except as provided by Chapters 10.16. through 10.32, or any other city ordinance, no person shall place, park, deposit or leave upon any street or other public a way, sidewalk or curb, any article or thing or material which in any way prevents, interrupts, or a obstructs the free passage of pedestrian or vehicular traffic, or obstructs a driver's view of traffic- control signs and signals." a 15.12.010 "It is the duty of all persons owning lots or land which have public sidewalks abutting the same, to maintain and keep in repair the sidewalks and not permit them to become or remain a in a dangerous or unsafe condition..." 18.795.030 "Visual clearance requirements." "A clear vision areas shall contain no vehicle, hedge, planting, fence, wall structure or temporary or permanent obstruction (except for an occasional utility pole or tree), exceeding three feet in height, measured from the top of the curb, or where no curb exists, from the street center line grade except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all branches below eight feet are removed." 18.810.070(D) "Sidewalk Maintenance. Maintenance of sidewalks, curbs, and planter strips is the continuing obligation of the adjacent property owner." I:curpln/christine/council for 06-19.01/applicable codes Attachment 3 ~ L BR'S R I Movdng R~ Sr Re -A QO J UT Ogg sT Y / Q r LM N RD W N f' ~ ~ I 1 l N Attachment 4 47 L CM NOTOINIF-MUC-Ae"i Mowing Red indicates mowing routes to be eliminated due to reduced mowing proposal. ST ao F Ur g 0~~ 8T i Q w P LM N RD W Q! Z N ( y 3 ~ Attachment 5 ~v R'S F R Mowing Schedule L y 2001-2002 U ~L O O DAK S ~ F ST K y T N i r 4 w P ~ RD BU L MO N 7 Y'- RD _ 41 ' L! J B END i ~ l Attachmwit 6 • All three options offer potential for long-term water supply for Tigard. • None of the options currently have available excess capacity for Tigard's long-term needs and all systems will need to upgraded and expanded. • There is no certainty that any option will meet Tigard's entire long-terns needs at a reasonable cost within a reasonable timeframe. In response to a question from King City Intergovernmental Water board member, Jan Drangsholt, Public Works Director Wegner noted that the Clackamas River and the JWC options offered parr ownership as raw water sources are developed. Tigard will continue to explore all three options with periodic evaluations of each. 4. DISCUSSION OF POLICY FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE ON MAJOR COLLECTORS At the August 15, 2000, City Council meeting, Council directed staff to investigate the costs of assuming responsibility/liability for arterials and/or major collector streets for both sidewalk maintenance and weed/grass mowing and weed/grass maintenance and then bring the issue back for Council review. Public Works Director Wegner reviewed the staff findings with the Council, with the highlights of his report shown on a PowerPoint slide presentation (copy is on file with the City Recorder). The recommendation of staff was that the City assumes enhanced right-of-way maintenance for 27,315 feet along major collectors abutting zoned residential property that is not currently being maintained. In addition, the City would provide basic maintenance along major collectors in areas of steep slopes or deep ditches. After the initial cost of $137,975 per year, the yearly cost of this option is $132,042. Staff noted there is a total of 23,928 feet of sidewalk adjacent to City sidewalk. Of this, 440 feet needs repairs at this time, which is estimated to cost $57,727. The City does not have equipment to do these repairs; Public Works Director Wegner estimated that it would cost under $100,000 to do the repairs in the first year. Sidewalk maintenance repair along major collectors would require: • some inventory of current conditions, • development of standards for preventative maintenance and emergency response, • provide for effective concrete repair, • establish frequency and level of ongoing inspection, ® determine where and how sidewalks need to be brought up to ADA standards, ® adopt a repair plan prior to accepting the liability exposure. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 17, 2000 - PAGE 4 After review of the staff report and discussion about costs, Council decided to review these issues during the next fiscal year's budget process. There was discussion of developing a phasing-in plan. Also discussed was the idea of accepting sidewalk maintenance in specified areas after an inspection of the sidewalk found that the sidewalk was brought up to standard. The Council asked for a more finite study with regard to costs. Councilor Hunt noted that property owners adjacent to Durham Road in the Summerfield area have no idea that they are responsible for the sidewalk since the sidewalk is so far from their property. He asked for more definition. Public Works Director Wegner noted that maintenance issues were not addressed for areas such as SW 135' Avenue or Sattler Street. These areas could be included in a maintenance program as an exception upon approval by the City Council. 5. BRIEFING ON RCN "BUNDLED" SERVICES CABLE/TELECOMMUNICATION FRANCHISES Finance Director Prosser introduced this agenda item. Council received information about RCN "bundled" cable television/telecommunication franchises. Bruce Crest, Executive Director for the Metropolitan Area Communications Commission (MACC) and RCN's Legal Counsel ]eff Condit presented information to the Council. MACC requested that Tigard grant a cable TV franchise to RCN Corporation. This is the first of several "bundled" franchises to come before the Council. Bundled franchises provide cable and telecommunications (data and voice) services over a common line. RCN and other bundled providers will require two franchises - one for cable television services that will be administered by MACC and one for telecommunications services that will be managed by local governments. Both franchises will have to be closely coordinated, however. In addition to the staff report, the Council received from MACC an "RCN Franchise Recommendation to the City of Tigard." Finance Director Prosser noted that a proposed ordinance granting the franchises will be before the Council on October 24, 2000. RCN has asked that the Council approve the ordinance and declare an emergency since Tigard is one of the last jurisdictions to consider approval. Council will consider an emergency clause with justification for the emergency to be presented by RCN. Council meeting recessed: 8:58 p.m. Council meeting reconvened: 9:07 p.m. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - OCTOBER 17, 2000 - PAGE 5 Attachment 7 ®!'100 3. DISCUSS RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPERTY MAINTENANCE Tigard Municipal Code Section 7.40.050(C) requires property owners or responsible parties to maintain the right-of-way abutting their property. It is necessary that the City's policy be clarified so there is fairness in its application, so costs can be planned for and budgeted, so there is uniformity in appearance in those areas under City control, and so enforcement can be carried out. In most newly developed areas in the City the property line abuts the sidewalk and the street pavement so there is no unpaved right-of-way to maintain. In older, established neighborhoods, many property owners extend their yards to the pavement and maintain the right-of-way as part of their yard. The exception is generally where there are drainage ditches or fences. In the case where there is a drainage ditch, the property owner may only maintain the right-of-way as part of the yard to the drainage ditch. In the case of a fence, along the rear of a property for instance, right-of-way is often neglected. Along some collector streets (i.e., Durham, Sattler, and 135th) and arterial streets (Hall Blvd.) there are properties that back against the right-of-way. Usually, these properties are separated from the right-of-way by a wall or fence. In many cases, there is an unpaved strip between the wall or fence and the sidewalk or street pavement that is in need of routine maintenance. In. many cases, the property owner performs no maintenance. In some cases, maintenance takes place only after an area becomes unsightly. The City's street crews now maintain some areas of unpaved right-of-way. The maintenance involves roadside mowing three to six times per year depending on the growth. Currently, the City maintains those locations that are on City arterials or collectors (not under County or State jurisdiction), under certain conditions, such as when they are too steep and/or contain deep storm drain ditches and/or are adjacent to property owned by the City. Other maintenance functions that are either taken on or neglected include street tree maintenance, weeding and spraying, and litter collection. Staff presented information detailing the City's current cost for maintaining rights-of-way, discusses options available to the Council and a general cost for each, and the staff's recommendation. Council reviewed information in their meeting packet as well as listened to comments from representatives of the Morning Hill Homeowners' Association regarding maintenance of the right-of-way along SW 135th. A memo submitted to the City Council addressed some of the issues raised by the homeowners. Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - August 15, 2000 - Page 7 Staff presented a PowerPoint slideshow highlighting the main points of this agenda item. (A copy of the slide presentation is on file with the City Recorder.) The Council, after discussion, agreed with the following direction to staff outlined by Councilor Patton: • Council is uncomfortable with the status quo in that City crews maintain some locations and others are not. This is not consistent with Tigard Municipal Code provisions. • Council is also uncomfortable that some of the right-of-way areas are not easily accessible by the property owner who is expected to maintain the right of way. These areas appear to be primarily along arterials or major collector streets. Council noted concern that street trees had not been maintained as agreed to by the property owners; this issue needs to be resolved. Council noted that the application of the Code should be consistent. Council asked staff to investigate costs of assuming responsibility/liability for arterials and/or major collector streets for both sidewalk maintenance and weed/grass mowing/maintenance (with level of maintenance to be defined). This will be brought back to the City Council for review. As a second part to this process (and at a later time), staff will prepare information for Council's review about whether the City should provide a higher level of maintenance service to areas identified as entry ways (also known as "portals") to the City of Tigard. 4. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS: None. 5. NON-AGENDA ITEMS: None. 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 10:45 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1), e), discuss real property transactions. 7. ADJOURNMENT: 10:50 p.m. Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder Mayor, City of Tigard Date: Tigard City Council Meeting Minutes - /~jjgust 15, 2000 - Page 8 Attachment 8 MEMORANDUM TO: Ed Wegner, Director of Public Works FROM: Loreen Mills, Sr. Management Analysy~L RE: Sidewalk Liability Review DATE: October 2, 2000 As part of Council's policy discussion about right-of-way maintenance, it is important to consider the liability associated with responsibility for sidewalk maintenance. In reviewing current case law, I don't see anything that would require sidewalk liability being moved away from the property owner/manager. Before a policy decision is made in this matter, let me identify what exposures come with the decision. In determining liability exposure and cost, one must first determine what sidewalks will be maintained. Ed Wegner has informed me that there are 85,000 lineal feet of sidewalks along collector streets and about another 45,000 lineal feet along the City's properties or rights-of-ways we need to maintain. Based on 130,000 lineal feet of sidewalk in a proposed maintenance program, our current carrier, City Council Insurance Services (CCIS) will not charge additional premium. Higher premium costs could be charged in the future if the City were to see much litigation over the sidewalk maintenance program. CCIS has informed me that they are only aware of one jurisdiction that current does sidewalk maintenance, the City of Salem. Concrete maintenance, managing vegetation around and over the sidewalk, proper drainage, and ice/snow removal as some areas of exposure in sidewalk maintenance programs. City of Salem is currently experiencing many liability claims from large, older trees along their sidewalks and finding the repair of a sidewalk without removing the tree difficult at best. Identifying the issues facing Tigard before starting a program would be necessary to reduce liability. n The usual type of risk in any maintenance program would be an increased exposure for workers comp claims if the City does the work in-house. Claims arising out of sidewalk ownership would be personal injury for trips and falls by pedestrians. Currently, Risk receives a few calls regarding sidewalk liability each month. The citizen is now referred to the adjacent property owner. If this were to change to a City program, Risk and Public Works staff would spend time in response. In order to have discretionary immunity as a defense in trip and fall claims, I would recommend the following be addressed before accepting maintenance responsibilities for sidewalks: ➢ Inventory current condition of the sidewalks (this would include identifying hazards that may cause or result in accidents leading to injuries); ➢ Develop standards for preventive maintenance and emergency response for sidewalk repair; ➢ Provide for effective concrete repair (in-house or by contract); ➢ Establish the freguency and level of on-going inspection of sidewalks; ➢ Determine how and when the sidewalks will be brought up to meet A_DA compliance standards (if they don't already); and ➢ Adopt a repair plan and budget authority to bring the sidewalks into compliance or up to standard prior to accepting the liability exposure. In any maintenance program, the City may receive a claim of negligence if the following are not in place: _ Inspection Maintenance Response Documentation Trained staff will attend the Council Work Session on 10/17/00 for this discussion. c: Liz Newton Lm/h:/docsMSUrance/sidewalk liability.doc Attachment 9 CITY OF TIGARD Engineering Department Shaping A Better Community MEMORANDUM CITY OF TIGARD 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Phone 503-639-4171 Fax: 503-624-0752 TO: Budget Committee Bill Monahan, City Manager Craig Prosser, Finance Director FROM: Gus Duenas City Engineer DATE: May 14, 2001 SUBJECT: Impact of the Enhanced Right-of-Way Maintenance on the Pavement Major Maintenance Program The establishment of the Enhanced Right-of-Way (ROW) Maintenance Program in the FY 2001- 02 Public Works Budget costs approximately $172,000. This amount includes three personnel, a new vehicle, miscellaneous minor equipment, and materials and supplies. The portion of this proposed program that is chargeable to the State Gas Tax is approximately $111,000. Funding this program from the State Gas Tax reduces the amount available for the preventative and corrective maintenance of existing City streets in the FY 2001-02 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and fiscal years beyond. 4 a i The amount available for the CIP from the State Gas Tax has been steadily decreasing over the last few years. The amount typically available for the Pavement Major Maintenance Program (PMMP), Traffic Calming, miscellaneous minor street improvements and traffic studies has ranged from $500,000 to $800,000. The PMMP takes a major part of the funding. The amount available dropped to $394,000 in FY 2000-01, and will drop to $132,000 in FY 2001-02. At some point over the next few years, the State Gas Tax, if not increased by the State Legislature, will no longer be a viable source of funds for anything other than routine maintenance. # Council has given direction to proceed with implementation of the Enhanced ROW Program, directing that the program be introduced as part of the FY 2001-02 budget. In review of the entire budget package, Council may wish to consider the program under three scenarios: Funding Through State Gas Tax After deducting $111,000 from the amount available for the CIP, the sum of $132,000 remains for the PMMP, traffic calming, embedded crosswalk lights, and miscellaneous other minor work. We have allocated $55,000 for the PMMP, which is sufficient to do only one major preventative maintenance project. The forecast for the fiscal years following FY 2001-02 is grim since the $132,000 now available will most likely decrease as operating costs increase and other equipment needs surface. Thus, if State Gas Tax funds are used for the program, a major portion of the available funding would be devoted to right-of-way maintenance, assuming no increase in the gas tax over the next few years. Funding Through the General Fund Absorbing the Enhanced ROW Maintenance Program in the General Fund would detract from other programs that are already relying on that funding, including development and upgrading of City facilities. In addition, the overall amount available from the General Fund itself will continue to decrease each year as operating costs increase and the need to maintain an adequate level of service persists. Additional General Fund revenues through a local option levy will be needed soon, whether or not the right-of-way maintenance program is funded by this fund. If the program is funded through the General Fund, the local option levy would be essential even sooner than anticipated. Reconsideration of the Program Council could choose to keep the status quo. The anticipated increase in energy costs this fall would probably limit the amount that could be made available for the CIP from the gas tax. We expect the increase in the CIP to be in the $90,000 to $110,000 range. This additional amount would allow us to do much more to protect our investment in the City's street infrastructure. In the long term, it would be a stopgap measure while we explore alternative sources of funding for preventative and corrective maintenance. The downside of keeping the status quo would most likely be an increase in code enforcement efforts to have homeowners maintain the areas along their frontages on collectors, and continuing complaints from homeowners who feel that work is not their responsibility. I am providing this information so that the full impact of the establishment of the Enhanced ROW Program can be considered before decisions on the budget are finalized. Ed Wegner and I will be available to discuss this matter further at the Budget Committee meeting on May 14, 2001. c: Ed Wegner t:\Eng\Gus\Word Documents\lmpact orthe Enhanccd ROW Maintenancc on the PMMP Enhanced Right-of-Way Program Impact Page 2 of 2 Attachment 10 Excerpts from the May 14, 2001 Budget Committee Meeting Minutes: Enhanced Right-of-Way Program: Ed Wegner and Gus Duenas presented the Budget Committee with an Enhanced Right-of-Way Program proposal, per Council's previous direction. The current Right-of-Way Program only chops bushes back for visual needs. The Enhanced Right-of-Way Program would mow the major collectors on a three-week cycle. This is an aesthetic program and would cost approximately $172,000 per year. Joyce Patton pointed out that some areas of great concern to certain residents such as Sattler and 135th would not be addressed by this Program as these streets were not designated as major collectors. Craig Dirksen asked if code enforcement could be used. Jim Hendryx responded that the first set of letters were just sent out to the residents backing 135th. The Budget Committee discussed the pro's and con's of the proposed Program. It was decided that the expense of the Program was unacceptable and that other options including education and code enforcement would need to be discussed. Bill Monahan suggested that the Committee use the Council workshop session in June to continue further discussion. 1 1 Attachment 11 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -MARCH 13, 2001 STUDY MEETING Mayor Griffith called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. Council Present: Mayor Griffith, Councilors Dirksen, Patton, Scheckla. Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan, City Engineer Gus Duenas, Chief of Police Ron Goodpaster, Streets Supervisor Howard Gregory, City Attorney Tim Ramis, Public Works Director Ed Wegner, City Recorder Catherine Wheatley. > FOLLOW UP OF SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE AND RESPONSIBILITIES ON MAJOR COLLECTORS Public Works Director Ed Wegner reviewed this agenda item. (See the staff report on file with the Council packet meeting materials.) Mr. Wegner reported that staff had reviewed the 25 miles of sidewalks adjacent to major collectors. Many of those sidewalks are in need of repair. It is anticipated that it would cost $300,000 in the first year and $200,000 in the next two years to bring the sidewalks into compliance with City standards. The Council reviewed this issue on October 17, 2000, and indicated at that time that the dollar figure was too high. Mr. Wegner noted that some of the sidewalks are behind fences and not easily accessible by the property owners adjacent to the sidewalks. Mr. Wegner outlined another alternative, which would be to have the City immediately accept sidewalks that meet APWA or City standards. (This alternative is outlined in detail in the Staff Report on file with the Council packet meeting materials.) Under this alternative, the City would notify homeowners that if they are willing to have the City inspect the sidewalks, and once the sidewalk meets standards, then the sidewalk would be accepted into the City for future maintenance. One drawback, noted Mr. Wegner, was that there could be piecemeal maintenance of sidewalks. For example, not all households adjacent to each other would agree to bring the sidewalks up to standard. It was noted also that this agreement would not mean that the City would keep the sidewalks clean and clear; this responsibility would remain with the property owner. Letters of agreement would need to be drawn up between the City and the property owners. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - March 13, 2001 page 1 Discussion followed. The following points were raised: s The City would not specify which contractor a property owner should use to bring the sidewalk up to standard. o Replacement would be for the size and standard for "today" for that street. o There are a number of contractors available that would give property owners advice in estimating the cost to repair and bring up to standard their segment of sidewalk. o The City would not do the work and bill the property owner. This matter will be packaged for the Budget Committee's consideration. The Council will also discuss it further at a future Council meeting. It was noted that a reminder should be placed in the Cityscape newsletter that property owners have responsibilities with regard to maintenance of the sidewalk. Councilor Patton requested that it is made clear that sidewalks being discussed for this program were those that were adjacent to major collector streets. It could be that some exceptions would be granted for sidewalks next to minor collector streets; however, those would come before the Council for determination. > COUNCILOR PATTON REPORT OF CONVERSATION WITH PORTLAND COMMISSIONER ERIK STEM REGARDING PORTLAND WATER Councilor Patton reported on a recent conversation she had with Portland Commissioner Erik Sten. She advised that Public Works Director Ed Wegner and she talked to Eric Sten during a Regional Water Consortium meeting with regard to the recent report in the press that Commissioner Sten was supportive of looking a regional water authority. It appeared that Commissioner Sten agreed that wholesale purchasers would also be supportive of viewing the Bull Run Water system as a regional resource. Commissioner Sten advised he had recently received support from fellow Commissioners for the idea of a regional water authority. The next step will be to obtain a resolution from the Portland City Commission supporting a regional water consortium. Then, a statement of principles should be developed. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - March 13, 2001 page 2 slim Attachment 12 MEMORANDUM TO: Christine Darnell, Dick Bewersdorff FROM: Howard Gregory RE: Areas the city will continue to maintain. DATE: June 7, 2001 The City will continue to maintain the right of way in the following areas: ■ Areas that have deep ditches or high banks Areas adjacent to all city property Areas along the rail road right of ways on Tigard Street from Main Street to Tiedeman Street and 74th Avenue from Durham Road to Bonita Road Areas along the State right of way on Cascade Blvd. All other areas will be returned to the adjacent property owners to maintain. We will continue to maintain vision clearance at intersections and around all street signs. This is necessary since we cannot wait for a complaint to work its way through the system when it pertains to the public safety. The Street Division will also continue to do street light clearance. This program was instituted in response to citizens complaints that the trees where blocking the light from reaching the street and sidewalks. So for the last three years we have gone through the City and cleared around streetlights. This program is currently set up on a three-year cycle. The City has invested in a sixty-foot lift truck and other equipment for this program. The only sidewalk maintenance that will be completed is the repair of sidewalks adjacent to City owned property with all other sidewalk repairs being the responsibility of the adjacent property owner. IAcurpln\chdstinelcouncil for 06-1MIftwards memo.doc • Page 1 Attachment #13 Cases by Percentage by Catagory January to October 2000 March to May 2001 Animals (ANI) 0 0.00 2 0.01 Auto (AUT) 76 0.07 16 0.09 Building (BUI) 2 0.00 9 0.05 Debris / Dumping / Litter (DEB) 119 0.12 13 0.08 Hazard/Obstructing Streets/Visual Clearance (HAZ) 197 0.19 2 0.01 HOP / Business Tax (BUS) 69 0.07 9 0.05 Housing Code (HOU) 0 0.00 2 0.01 Noxious Vegetation (NOX) 276 0.27 48 0.28 Open Storage of Junk (JNK) 83 0.08 14 0.08 Other/ Noise / (OTH) 23 0.02 18 0.11 Sanitation (SAN) 0 0.00 3 0.02 Signs (SGN) 178 0.17 35 0.20 Total Total 1023 1.00 171 1.00 2000 Case Types 2001 Case Types by Percent by Catagory by Percent by Catagory ®Animals (ANI) I IM Animals (ANI) ® Auto (AUT) ® Auto (AUT) ❑ Building (BUI) ❑ Building (BUI) O Debris / Dumping / Litter (DEB) E3 Debris / Dumping / Litter (DEB) ® Hazard/Obstructing Streets/Visual Clearance (HAZ) 0 Hazard/Obstructing Streets/Visual Clearance (HAZ) ® HOP / Business Tax (BUS) ® HOP / Business Tax (BUS) ® Housing Code (HOU) ® Housing Code (HOU) ❑ Noxious Vegetation (NOX) E3 Noxious Vegetation (NOX) ® Open Storage of Junk (JNK) ® Open Storage of Junk (JNK) * Other / Noise / (OTH) M Other / Noise / (OTH) O Sanitation (SAN) ❑ Sanitation (SAN) M Signs (SGN) M Signs (SGN) Page 1 Ixurpln/christine/council for 06-19-01/spreadsheet of case type percentages ~ ;id '^^t~-+~' i J"t tf y ~'dn, sC t ~ir.• f~+ +~4'ttS ?',K 3,f~, ~~i i (r'h a.~' . tR ..,w : f; f.'.. ~l,n'^K+ p)p)p)QQQyyy p' ^Y('i 1t p1a ~ _ Jh,~ Xa7,.J .k 4~4'v'`~ l~f♦.~t4 r rit: FI eA•~ Yet{~d } t s kt f ,1y~ r 1 ~'N ~ ~~f ~'r~ f-t5f?~ Y~ ~ l ~ n .ti r -s ~tk~`t~r x y1/~nr«n~ t E~ '3' t 1~ t~ <J•c'~s ...rf qf.A.{ y 'i :t,r E ~,a,y4»~~3,~yy'~~ ~ ~ ~ -~v~'~y~.,7ry~ar~^~KF'~~~ ~i,% lE}~•~J~r ~ : •1 r` ~ ~ ,ft'~'~k`~.T7f r.~~! ~ _ r~''.~l'T dr. ~~r> 1~~.~ S,~'# "r~•~•''~rt'3~'' y "irr jZ,{ ~ } - E +~6,J~z•+,E'i''a.~ y~?3~"~ r ~y~: 4~ ~i..ti~'rq+ ~,'c r'.~r ~'r J~sT~~ . • r ,4~ E. ~ § ;'r ~l rE~•. ds.B' ~/6,'s''v~~~ i ~ ~ +-fi ~ ~T S . :y`Rt is trtc^~ `54~~+3 I :'Lc~~ , ~ ~','i t,f/ r?7s f4' 'PIC 5yii. ~ Y .t o i i. frYi F yyyy rt f3 f.~y (7C ccr1 y'r gi. ^ lip 4 ~~"nU~riey~~~. t ~ i. r t - a 6f A. F S I}kJ b N i ~ryel~~ ~nr ~ ~ r i~+y?l4$~ :mss. `'P` ' vp I, ~ C~uW ~d7 34' y. Wa/. r ~ p~~~.1~~~~~iyi~':~7..~~~5~1~~'e~f S ` v a t i ~r ,',L, ~ k~'. i i k~' i i C 1 t 1 1 4 { 3 :.-~4 ~ ® e s ~ ~ a ® ® ~ ® ® a rte.. ~F ~X- _ Key..: ' v v v %-i { l sir t i ~ y a,~kta {,~,r~£tit'~+F s'~ ~s'~`~`~ xp', k` d ~ .'fix ~ r'3"".~~L; ~ 4t ~ r S jS ~`t ~•v~ f' "tif--~~~1~:~, R gig cx , iw ~lz'•„'r- } w-"7± ~`'~4.~zi#,4's :r:s Ya~`k~...'~ r Naj, . c ~,ef'= J ~ t t tje't £'d'Ry r tYy ,r~,.R;s ~~sYy . y ~F,+ ~ y is n'`'✓~ a?. f .`g• . S r s, a ".a,r,,,,~,y ,~~..r ~ ~ .;~u~: v1 -'P ,4~ ?J „ h~~.~-kf Z.k • i~r'~ 7~ x x~, 1~ . u,4.i~' ~'3 ,1 ,~~."k~t ~•~c `~'"`t• a , :.i_~~.K:~ t `s,- ~ . r,t' M ~ - 4 wa;: ~ r ~•+-~e-r^ y~to'•.~~.. -'S.r ~"~.r'3,' „K+,~` sr~, ~~~t*,~lp>~'K#~.pt;r ~ ' ® ® - ® - - ~r v v v v 0 k '*a~ ® ® v a v- ® ® v v a. fr v ~ Ii~2 'i r -y{a j~~~ or 4 c rr' F r/. F FV~ 3 t .:1 „V' liC -,r^4 r ~C`,~~ di ,...wc~'j`y~ r } ~ x { ~ 3u i. ~ef . ew . . • a , ~ ~~%jp~ ~ a"7 ~ 'T!f Y Y~ hn `7•R`v ut y i i . y. ~X x ~ !s , f~ ~ r ,w il<~ t'iaf' 1~i ~y~~ < «tl /.F~h•4~ir'~,,'~:"~'~+SJu ~,4 i ,~~yx'"n { sj (j; ?±r+~ V'~ s- t ~'l~ .ki, j v'4~~ `F ~'~~',.t.r.°~~ Y ~.a:,v~'1!arT. S;',~(~t;I,'s'S~~..it6b"GISI. 7~.k. r. ,.9~..t,.i. m •;~~t:~.1.u :i.7f ,]n.Tus~..:.<L rtr.u ai:..:. t.. Y. lv4 1,. c' ! 1 s;. S ..r C YY y e o 1 ,t • 1Sr •~h k ~A i~ LEGIBILITY STRV 4Y R' ~~tJ IL t S ~i t ~ ,pf st A1tO a ~ r,i ~ r ttUT fi ~h 1 y C per' ti s _ w p , g Rp 1i! d dU 'AIJ fl G R ~ N f ~-r,s_ f y a ti ~ ~ - - - - ISO seem t. s ~ t as s as z r F u~ b 1 S 7 l'O R„i.`i 4 f r. V 4 3 r~r~•F Cf:}S t T 1 P ~nl 81u1 r, 4N ,ari 1(~ e &7 "7;},;~fr"•Y-1 r?7,x~z, Y-y?d ~+~F„_t ;>?r 1A+ n a S£ r+,ri ,k~ /'~S• .r f~~' t>`'y •4t 115 sd,.Lr~ 4~ :LT~L a t~f "w, i%»„il.'~~.rT.^...:.:~~a..i.:'~".igt~.3:,.'~t.:i "`s~a~!:'.yii,~..~. ~~.t'..-.,. l i,r~.t r. ~e''✓...3r.?f«~'.F`f~r:r~'+~~'.~a.1 ~°".~..y11~E"~u~Ys:'K?,it Sr✓''( ...f.. ~.~~£✓;~..FrR. ka 5r ~ rY t k• 1 i ra". t~ zz Kos fi r~ • t r Y'n 1 T., h ' .f 0 i 1 A b,a ~,;N ® 0 :a 1 ligil *a 3! fr J,' T` tY L8<~~ v i 5Hg w~" wr ~e fF r''7v'~': °~ft . .s.. '-4lCFF7ti'~~5~`~ ?.'T'{it.. ,f•'v c1S1;~•`cY±p,J~ c77L:,:F~.~"".'."..~,.,.~,n~:c..t ~~..__t~"5•.rS:..,~t.r.! b(w. ...,~'d..-~ ~ . , c,'.. 3r~n t....., tr...;tcf k- r r y~. r~ b v' 4 A 1,n b 0 A 4 b Ai A 40 "tom ® A G r. A A ® b 3 i A b s ~ ® A A ® b ~'i JI s i ' ` r 1 ~ 'yx C ` ~ I } ~ } ly ~f 1 j x ° a r,. `{C F. t 1~ ,Yt } l 2 ,z r r x . ~ L C ~ ~ A r 7 h h f J H ''L C it t, ~ ,r •@`']tc: Y ~ t,~,, Jv iM ~v "~'Jn.e4 tR+ t`i,,'n...~~ ~~v~F :'L- ~ k r. J r L * F, r! r 2+a.,1S°Y f l; ~ x>- r 1 F 5-1 ~ J _ J - 7 ,~7v r t } ~ ~ u ._vI ~S?3~~,~ tYl ~S.J~? •,t 3gr F tr k 4 L h F yy S~~ ~ ..••T ~fy t kyi. rh. s r: r G tit r s ® ~ 3 Fr? W-s p t '1 Pr ~ l 1': f~ £1 y r rtj z - r1 ' ~Fy~tir 5 [ `.y t, 5^ y td r 4' r v y+ h } r y s ~ ~ ~ eat p ~ z a 1 i R + ~ r { - e s _ - , 1 ia j 4 r;w t ~l I. r r r ~ t ~ ~ F 4 Y ` r.e i tNe T~ ~i., T Z1 .f t ' ,r } ✓ 1 r ,~y{ ~ 6 -.a , r ,L I f ~ 7~r~rn ~jC ~ mow? } r ~ t _ y} oal~ ~ k r X r t i yl. ' ~ ~ ~'^tt ~ 4 fi $ F ETnY k as .k ; ~ L t.- x I IN r v' F c* i 5 V I r wit ~ ~ i r . ~ T` w> ; 3 r {Y-•~ - ' bra ~ 1Y + `k t~' ~ ~ : 9 VIII I ~,~9 wwo a r1 ~ ~ a 3 +r r n r 5p i 5. 1 r~ f. lT - ~ y f} i v", L k + u f N 1$ 4 c 7l / 3 { -r4x ~ ~ ~++~s F. ~ ~ 'R L, ~V i F~ ; I:•..G.~ c "f~, r4 ' kq-t G' jv: C h~ rLl/ Y aAN C'r. ! } eN. Y ~i^ T ~ t 41 f i I III !~II 9. S .M 1 f F i r, f l _ t ~t t t _ ~ .~3 r 4 ~ C F 1 ab t }C t E -T k` L ~ y J 4. tlr~ y ~~~L xi ~ ,Y. L- ~ :ski` t f L s rn~ -t' r r x r ~ r'r.<u~ d -„jc y 3 ~3 S ` 'r<.. s j-~JJV'['~• n! -~3 `"'I S F ~ tz- ~.r~, "-1rxr~ f ._4 ~ r { t C ws h~ e - xr-~ ~ t F ` - ~A'a+ha t ~?t ~ oil J.r~! a - i Ajil ' ~rA2faAi~A}I If i'II~1~ I 1 lif i e c f , = 4 t a \ 0. i ~ k „ c, A A Y5 .t.v d ^`L t-1r T I1~~~1 III! d ® a S Y` 7lh _ _ u SE o- may{ - ~ ! n r` ^F; • ~ j" } pp~, r 2 e 1 1 .l ~ -aFK ~ 0 ' ~z 1rt ~a t e~ ~i low a - .E I y e t a ~ 3L ~ ~t f ~ y ti T ti ' ~ t ® P 4 0 - y- t L . L i 'r+{s s 2 .f hA CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Undate from the New Tigard I ibrarv Construction Committee PREPARED BY: Mar&aret Barnes DEPT HEAD OK „za_ CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Presentation by the New Library Construction Committee to update the City Council on the status of the work of the Committee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation is for the City Council to provide the Construction Committee further direction to continue its work. INFORMATION SUMMARY The New Tigard Library Construction Committee met with the City Council in April of 2001 to present the findings of the "Needs Analysis Report for a new Tigard Library" and the "Building Program for the new Tigard Library." At this meeting the Council also reviewed a diagram illustrating the "space adjacencies" of the major service areas of the library. Also presented to the Council was the criteria developed by the Committee and BML Architects to evaluate preliminary sites. The Committee reviewed three potential sites. with the Council. The Committee was directed to continue the current process and at this time is prepared to give an update to Council on the work of the Committee. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Continue with this process and look at placing a bond measure on the ballot in May or November 2002. Complete the current process and wait until a later datefor the question to be placed before the voters. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTIONCOMMITTEE STRATEGY Goal #3: Adequate facilities are available for efficient delivery of life-long learning programs and services for all ages. Strategy 41: Form a construction committee to explore the feasibility of new library space. Action Items: Construction Committee reviews possible sites for new library space. Construction Committee recommends to the City Council a short 'list of potential sites. Strategy #2: Construction Committee reviews the "Needs Analysis Report" and the "Building Programming Report" and presents recommendations to City Council. S ATTACHMENT LIST N/A FISCAL. NOTES The preliminary estimated cost for this project is between $14,000,000 and $17,000,000. Reasons to Recommend a Two-story structure ~C1 C C /l3/1 ~9k/ 1. Avoid public perception of a sprawling building 2. Civic Presence 3. Allows for future expansion 4. Uncertain codes may make future expansion difficult 5. Increases the flexible use of the space 6. Allows for more parking 7. Ease of emergency vehicle access 8. More efficient internal circulation of public and staff 9. More greenspace/potential outdoor programming 10. Patron/User Friendly ~,e 600 NORTHEAST GRANO AVENUE PORTLAND, OREGON 97712 2716 N(:)n A 01-ria- T E L 50 3 79 7 1 7 0 0 I F AX 507 79 7 1 79 7 Copies to: Mayor/Council ther: City Manager 1 l Council File 111' METRO pGQ'~. May 30, 2001 The Honorable Jim Griffith City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Portland, OR 97223-8144 Dear Mayor Griffith, As Metro continues its urban growth boundary periodic review work, I wanted to take this opportunity to continue the dialogue with you on the 2040 Growth Concept. We are interested in how you perceive it to be working in your community, how it supports or conflicts with your community's vision and what issues Metro needs to address. I would like to schedule a meeting between you and your council and representatives from the Metro Council as soon as possible to discuss these issues. A member of my staff will be calling you in the next few days to set up a meeting. For your convenience, I am enclosing a copy of the questions we suggest discussing but we are open to any topics you might wish to raise, too. I appreciate you taking time to think about how regional growth management policies are working or not working in your community and how we can make our regional community a better place to live. Your feedback is important to help shape Metro's work-program and future Metro Policv Advisory Committee and Metro Council decisions related to growth management. look~forward to meeting with you. Sincerely, avid Bragdon Metro Presiding Officer Enclosure R,,y,l,d 7.p- Ww metro-r_.gion.org TOO 797 1804 r~. M METRO Periodic Review Discussion Topics for Meetings with Local Government Officials Spring/Summer 2001 • What are the major issues your community is facing? • What do you see as the major challenges to managing growth in your community? • Is the Functional Plan helpful in shaping your community? If not, why not? • Metro is currently in periodic review with the state for the urban growth boundary. Next year the Metro Counci(will be considering additional policies to shape growth in the region. This might include amendments to the urban growth boundary or additional tools as well as more funding for parks and greenspaces. What policy directions do you think Metro should take? • Before the urban growth boundary is moved, we must determine whether projected growth can be accommodated inside the current boundary. In your opinion, are there opportunities to use existing urbanized land more efficiently? • If we do expand the UGB, where do you believe expansion is appropriate and needed and where not? Why? • How and who should pay for the costs associated with growth - new or improved roads, sewers, water, schools, parks and open spaces? • What, if any, changes to the Regional Framework Plan could help your community work better? o How does the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC) and the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation work for you? I I:\gm\gmadm\share\Local Govt Officials Questions May 2001.doc a Non Agenda - 6-19-01 Poll Council - Anyone attending the I-5 Interchange Ceremony on July 10 at 9:30 a.m.? Request from David Bragdon - Metro Presiding Officer: How is the 2040 Growth Concept working in our community? The Oregon Department of Transportation Invites you to a GRAND- OPENING CEREMONY for the Interstate 5@Highway 217/Kruse Way Interchange Project on the Bonita Overpass in Tigard Tuesday, July 10 at 9:30 AM Refreshments will be served . r MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Dennis Koellermeier, Utility Manager RE: Water Supply Update DATE: June 18, 2001 The purpose of this memo is to brief you on current short-term issues and efforts effecting our water supply this summer. This memo is organized according to our water sources. City of Portland City of Portland will be our primary source of water this summer and based on that, the following information regarding City of Portland/Bull Run is offered: ■ Bradley Corner improvements have been completed and tests indicate Tigard can receive flows up to 9.8 mgd which is up from the original 7.0 mgd ■ Public Works staff is pursuing a possible correction to the City of Tualatin's portion of the Washington County Supply Line. This connection would be an inexpensive improvement, which should yield 1-2 mgd on most days and 3-4 mgd on average days. This water would also be less expensive than our current Portland supply. When engineering is complete this could be in place in approximately two weeks and we will keep you updated. ■ City of Portland pricing has been set and our primary supply will cost us 0.91 ccf, up from 0.81 ccf. ■ Portland staff continues to tell us that adequate supplies exist in the Bull Run system. Draw down and peaking operational criteria has been postponed twice due to rain events in the watershed, but drawdown can be expected at anytime. Joint Water Commission ■ The Joint Water Commission curtailed their supply to Tigard beginning May 11th and we do not expect to be back on Joint Water Commission water until late fall or early winter. Memorandum of Understanding between City of Tigard and Joint Water Commission has been signed by both parties. Water Supply Update June 18, 2001 Page 1 !City/ of Tictard As you may recall, Tigard has an active conservation program with a goal of shaving 11% off our peak flows to that end we have: ® Announced and publicized our voluntary "Even/Odd Watering" campaign Cover article titled "Use Water Wisely" in June Cityscape Balloon Festival handouts updated CIT meeting on June 7l' featured this message In summary, Public Works staff is active on several fronts to ensure adequate water supply is available to Tigard through the summer season. Based upon our knowledge, information from our suppliers and the most current information available on weather, we should be positioned to meet the anticipated demands on the system. Water Supply Update June 18, 2001 Page 2