Loading...
04/06/2016 - Packet Completeness Review for Boards, Commissions ` and Committee Records CITY OF TIGARD TTAC -Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee Name of Board, Commission or Committee April 6, 2016 Date of Meeting I have verified these documents are a complete copy of the official record. Joe Patton,Meeting Secretary Print Name gnature May 5, 2016 Date City of Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee Agenda MEETING DATE/TIME: April 6, 2016—6:30 to 8:30 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: Tigard Library,2nd Floor Conf. Room, 13500 SW Hall Blvd. 1. CALL TO ORDER Kevin 6:30 Welcome and Introductions 2. CONSIDER MINUTES Kevin 6:35 3. PUBLIC COMMENT Kevin 6:40 4. SW SERVICE ENHANCEMENT PLAN Tom Mills 6:45 5. SW CORRIDOR DECISION PROCESS & Buff 7:15 PROPOSED PARTICIPATION 6. UPDATE ON FY17—22 CIP PLANNING Buff&Mike 7:30 7. BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PLANNING Mike 7:45 8. PROJECT UPDATES Mike 7:55 9. LIAISON REPORTS Joe/Ben,Yi/Don 8:10 PBS, Planning Commission 10. OTHER BUSINESS All 8:20 11. ADJOURNMENT Kevin 8:30 Supporting materials/handouts: March 2,2016 Minutes Planning Calendar Upcoming meetings of note: Wednesday,April 13, 6:30 p.m., City Center Advisory Commission Meeting,Red Rock Conf. Room Thursday,April 28, 5:00 p.m.,Pedestrian Bicycle Subcommittee,Western Bikeworks,7295 SW Dartmouth Ave Wednesday,May 4,6:30 p.m.,TTAC Meeting,Tigard Library,2nd Floor Conf. Room TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA—April 6, 2016 City of Tigard 1 13125 SW Hall Blvd.,Tigard,OR 97223 1 503-639-4171 1 www.dgard-or.gov I Page 1 oft L•\Community Development\Boards Committees Commissions\TTAC\2016\04 ApriATTACAgenda 20160406.docx CITY OF TIGARD TIGARD TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes April 6, 2016 Members Present: Russell Casler,Timothy Esau (alternate),Benjamin Gooley,Erik Halstead (Vice Chair),Yi-Kang Hu, Karen Hughart, Stephanie McKee, Susan Pfahl (alternate), Don Schmidt, Elise Shearer,Joseph Vasicek,Robert Van Vlack, and Kevin Watkins (Chair). Members Absent: N/A. Staff Present: Buff Brown, Sr. Transportation Planner; and Joe Patton, Sr.Administrative Specialist. Others Present: City Councilor Marc Woodard,TTAC Liaison; and Tom Mills,TriMet Senior Planner. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Watkins called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. The meeting was held in the Tigard Library, 2nd Floor Conference Room, at 13500 SW Hall Blvd. 2. CONSIDER MINUTES The March 2, 2016 meeting Minutes were approved. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT—None 4. SW SERVICE ENHANCEMENT PLAN Tom Mills stated the TriMet Service Enhancement Plan (SEP) is divided into five areas:Westside, Southwest (includes Tigard), North/Central, Eastern and Southeast.The Westside and Southwest plans are complete. Tom will forward the Southwest Plan to Buff for distribution to TTAC. He provided a brief overview of the process used to prioritize improvements and to maintain, optimize and increase service,including purchasing new buses as all are in use during rush hour currently. Normally service changes occur in March and September due to the complexity of scheduling issues. This year changes will also occur in June.A collaboration with other jurisdictions helps to prioritize specific investments. Tom will attend a summer TTAC meeting to receive input on priorities. Then he will return to a fall or winter TTAC meeting to get comments on the draft Annual Service Plan. Erik will lead an "ad hoc" committee regarding transit service improvements;Tim will investigate opportunities for collaboration with adjacent municipalities. 5. SW CORRIDOR DECISION PROCESS & PROPOSED PARTICIPATION Buff noted there are two staff recommendation regarding the SW Corridor. The first is to utilize light rail as opposed to Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) since light rail can better accommodate future growth past 2035. Also,light rail is estimated to have lower operating costs,improved reliability and better ridership compared to BRT. The second recommendation is to forego the PCC tunnels due to their expense and potential impact on the length of the alignment and a decrease in ridership. Other transit connection options will be explored for the Sylvania campus. There are still three options for Tigard with pros and cons to each: Clinton alignment,Ash alignment and a branch alignment. Costs to Tigard cannot be determined until the final alignment is determined. Buff will gather available information on costs and present this information at a future meeting. Page 1 of 2 TIGARD TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY+COMMITTEE April G,2016 U.. UPDATE ON FY17 —22 CIP PLANNING The CIP needs to be reviewed by the Budget Committee before being released. Buff noted that KIST"IP funds are available. Five of seven projects submitted by Tigard are on the county's 15{}% eligible list. The 100% list will be decided in June. Total funding for the five projects is$12 - $15 million. Also,the county would manage the projects, requiring little Tigard staff time. CIP funding for project management is budgeted, but major funding was not allocated due to the likelihood of MSTIP funding. 7. BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PLANNING This topic was postponed until next month. 8. PROJECT UPDATES The updates were included in the agenda packet. 9. LIAISON REPORTS—PBS,Planning Commission A. Ben said there is focus on sidewalks near schools in Washington County including Metzger and beer Creek in the Tigard area. The new high school was included in the focus area.The Tour De Parks event is receiving support from the new Tigard Parks and Recreation coordinator. It will become an event of the Street Fair this year. Western Bike Works is a sponsor this year. There are volunteer opportunities for the Tour De Parks. B. The last Planning Commission meeting was a briefing on the Tigard Triangle,upcoming Code amendment updates, and a citizen involvement update. 10. OTHER BUSINESS Robert noted that on 98" Avenue the City painted "STOP AHEAD"in big letters on each side of Summerfield Drive on the pavement. A solar powered red blinking light may be installed if the problem persists. 11. ADJOURNMENT Chair Watkins adjourned the meeting at 8:15 pm. _Joe anon, TTAC Meeting Secretary ATTEST: Devin Watkins, Chair Page 2 of 2 Service Enhancement Plan Prioritization / Annual Service Plan Process TRANSIT T Tigard Transportation Advisory Committee April 6, 2016 www.trimet.org/future �i Service Enhancement Plans • Westside - Completed esi p Eastside .0 Southwest - Completed North/Central — Refined Draft Vision • Eastside — Refined Draft Vision Southwest Southeast Southeast — Draft Vision TriMet Payroll Tax 10 year phase-in $4.3 mil of new revenue per year • Early investments won't have capital components (i.e. , new buses) Large ticket improvements o Powell-Division operations o Red Line extension to Hillsboro operations TriMet Annual i Planning P BLJ�I�,et Forecast �Arinua'I Service Plan IFtall but Devello�pment: 5ervice Charges 11liaintain, (�ptimiae & Increase ommunity Input TriMet Board Annual Service Plan Proposal �4ction Public Comment Final�In�n�aai e�rrice Pian Title VI Revier�r T I @$ MET 4 MaintainingOptimizing& Service Maintain: =1 �' Reliability — on time performance Capacity — balancing loads Optimize o - System efficiencies TR I GMET Increasing Service : SEP Prioritization • Jurisdictional priorities o Encourage collaboration a R o Turn taking among jurisdictions "�'• , o Incremental improvements SEP measures • Public input TriMet Annual Plan SEP Measures C�onnecti�ns Growth Equity Demand praductir�ity SEP I�'leasures �perati�ns + Cost Buy ��+ailahility T R I M E T SEP Prioritization Schedule • Late Summer — SEP prioritization kick-off • Late Summer/Fall — TriMet staff works with jurisdictions on SEP priorities • Late Fall — Jurisdictions finalize their SEP priorities • Late Fall/Early Winter — TriMet presents draft Annual Service Plan proposal to jurisdictions and takes comments • New Year — TriMet presents final Annual Service Plan proposal to jurisdictions • New Year — Annual Service Plan proposal goes to the public for comment FY17 Annual Service Plan & Other Upcoming Improvements �•� oili k , f l.: T I T 10 March 2016 Line 57—add early morning and late night weekday trips Line 12—add early morning and late night weekday trips Line 76—add late service on Sundays Line 78—add late service on Sundays 1 • �•� iii � � , k , f •- afar f f T 1Ael% T 12 •h � - _ - - SII -,•p. - �;� MIMI — b � 1 yo .y TSI MET FY17 Annual Service Plan Outreach • Comment period Feb. 4th to Mar. 11th : - Onboard outreach Online outreach Neighborhood/jurisdictional outreach Multi-lingual outreach • Open house — Feb. 25th GREW PLACES -"Corridu Staff Recommendations What is the preferred high capacity transit mode for the Southwest Corridor? • Light rail Should a light rail tunnel directly serving the PCC Sylvania campus be advanced into the Draft Environmental Impact Statement? • Remove from further study • Continue to explore and refine alternative options for improved transit connections to the Sylvania campus G REAT PLACES Orrill or Light rail or BRT? BUS RAPID s: .,rte A u � MAX light rail in Portland FmX bus rapid transit in Eugene $$$ Higher construction cost $$ Lower construction cost Lower operating cost Higher operating cost $$ per passenger $$$ per passenger i 1h i d' 6 266 passengers i i 86 passengers per vehicle per vehicle 100% in its own 50-80% in its own right-of-way right-of-way Attracts more new lb Attracts fewer new i lb transit riders i # transit riders TR I it MET 16 GRE0. i PLACES Wor orn Reasons for Light Rail LJ Greater long term carrying capacity ✓ Can accommodate growth past 2035 LJ Better transit performance ✓ Travel time, reliability and ridership ✓ Lower operating cost per rider LJ Integration into existing MAX system ✓ Less impact on Transit Mall capacity LJ Higher level of public support CAPACITY FOR LONG -TERM RIDERSHIP GROWTH PROJECTED 5,0001... .. . . ... .. .. ... . ... . ... .... ... .... . .........--.. .... . RIDERSHIP capacity for about 3,000 more riders per DEMAND hour beyond 2035 with increased service IN 2035 4,000 ...... .. ................\. . . .. . . . .. . . . 0 3,000 . . . . .. .. . . . .. . .. ........... .. .. . .. ... . . .. .. . LU capacity for 13. demand about 200 1.n exceeds more riders LW capacity per hour In 2,000 . .... ....... 2035 hourly ridership demand during rush hour at the busiest . .. ... ..paint on the line (Barbur Blvd & Gibbs SO base FCC base PCC BRT LRT TRAVEL TIME 2035 TRAVEL TIME P5U to Bridgeport pillage 38 min . base ...� 34 min B RT - 42 miry PCC 31 min I 31 rn i n) base y 30 min LRT 32 min PCC -- 31 min r r r 10 20 30 40 50 rush hour travel time off-peals travel time GRE0. i PLACES Wor orn Reasons to not study PCC Sylvania tunnel in DEIS Ll Ridership gains < cost LJ Substantial trade-offs ✓ Shortened alignment with less ridership ✓ Less funding for station connectivity and local � bike/ped/road projects ❑ Neighborhood impacts LJ Unclear ROI on campus � LJ Viable alternate connections Upcoming Southwest Corridor Steering Committee meetings April 6 PCC connections comparison 6-8 pm Southwest Staff recommendations for May decisions Community Center Public forum May 9 Decisions on Mode and PCC tunnel 9-11am Tigard Town Update on bike, pedestrian roadway Hall projects June 13 Endorse HCT Preferred Package 9-11 am Metro DEIS scoping preview Regional Center Purpose and Need update Future Southwest Corridor Schedule Preferred Package Locally Preferred Begin DEIS continues Alternative (LPA) environmental Secure local funding review (DEIS) commitment —11 2019-20 'A I -A MIA 111N11 Advanced engineering CONSTRUCTION Federal rating and funding agreement GREAT PLACES rri A n r I I Nut" Portland • Sherwood • 7igard • Tualatin Beaverton • Durham • King City • Lake Oswego Multnomah County • Washington County QDOT • TriMet • Metro Recommendations for Staff May 2016 decisions Mode and PCCTunnel April 6, 2016 I 'M1� MORRISdN I Downtown REEAtoar Portland � NAVJfN4RNf - p9� Marqu ;�..... HillOill— Hillsdale tunnel i P I Y Hillsdale Loop Piillsdale BuEGngame _;� Village a _ - p GARDEN NpM; _ k4 ,r r Recent I 7AYE04M.RRY L $arbur Steering Transit WI Center w yay,,t Committee PCC 57FPNF,V' -. ¢gp� I Sylvania / Downtawn J Trgard := Tigard ' =------- ------- decisions Triangle ;- Downtown Tigard FJE IL KRU5E Kruse SOWay o� I � I Bridgeport E -'� `�--�' Village )FAN I Terminus T'_Idldti NI'RFR:: 1 1 a ._ M10RRISdN ! ••i' Downtown � sfLatoar Portland - • - I •••• ai"' - Fq ••••ii ........e.......... 2 NAVJfN4RNf •••• j \ 'iQ•«• ait� 'pIVI510N I Marquarn ... ; Po4yRr•: arroN Hill I � 1 h ? I oNaearf. ff"WRTON HIUM4LE z I s'yFr a r � I i I cANlr��t 3 � AUFN .Hillsdale n MMU" - Burlingame r'Emtier _' I < Multnomah I Village kp GAROfN NpM[ ! 4fVL rNOg qN � nk �gawTACOM4Remaining I Bantu TSteering ransi PCC y I Cerate m Committee - PCC `,. • 1 I Sylvania Downtown _ I Tigard . Tigard - decisions Triangle I P I xeusE Kruse Qae Way MAX tight rail in Portland Bridgeport I Village t I it 1- I r l� C"IMS Downtown Tualatin NY fm I 1 - EmX bus rapid transit in Eugene I a aau Np GAEAT PLACES -Worr dor Staff Recommendations What is the preferred high capacity transit mode for the Southwest Corridor? • Light rail Should a light rail tunnel directly serving the PCC Sylvania campus be advanced into the Draft Environmental Impact Statement? • Remove from further study • Continue to explore and refine alternative options for improved transit connections to the Sylvania campus GAEAT PLACES -Worr dor Reasons for Light Rail ❑ Greater long term carrying capacity ✓ Can accommodate growth past 2035 ❑ Better transit performance ✓ Travel time, reliability and ridership ✓ Lower operating cost per rider ❑ Integration into existing MAX system ✓ Less impact on Transit Mall capacity ❑ Higher level of public support GREAT PLACES -Worr dor • Integrateion with • regional MAX system Light rail 6 RT LRT would ■ " connect to either IL Yellow Line or BIT would Green Line MAX terminate at Union Station ", ......._. DO ■ 0 o existing LRT all new operations .1 � x'v' p operating ° 8144 i?r fXr � � Transit Mall hours o°a i -!-6 0 o a■VaJ�P'm! wid�lkl■ p O 96ia—��'i M 7hi.4dn4. �q O'GC74d0 �'4C7 O J(� new operating Tom_ o hours south of 4 T. Transit Niall o m 0 0 Q fl g 4 O p IFS p 6 n q p q (5 O d fi O Z\9 zl GREAT PLACES orr dor • • Public i Responses from Jan- Feb online survey ( 2400 responses) ' • 17% OLL_15% ' strong BRT neutral/ moderate LRT strong LRT support don't know support support moderate BRT support Tigard Community Survey ( Fall 2015 ) If HCT is developed. . . • 52% of respondents would prefer LRT • 15% would prefer BRT 0 23% would prefer both options y � =s ■^r 4 ' .� 1 rr< • S' �, " =- TS ,a ,.Cr * {�� , Rt `•££easy - .-- ,, .*', *•' *� '�*,'►g^it .p + _'a .►�a � �,'' '-•; +«Cts;F-i i3 ;, ''.z 4 `1`' =' S' , ;, w '��, 1` ��- =�r�"`�-�.'~a'+c t,�• , - �9.T SY -■ems S, 4p� ,y- a. RNNM K - w � ��7,a..�1f■� - s$ �y._ \�R� t,r "L�i, 'F _ ,�� _ ,�iE(rS`-.i� { ' � K���'�� .�'`��-v .�'l'��.rJF .' �, "{` i �• '"3 � a s� ',,pr �� 7�'c��` F-t'4.i �7,�4: � ! •� ."� _�' r. ,< .. � ,s ck � •a +'tet j� "�._^t' a"F,.' '� ;�'+++�„�`.-F w M 4 c*�:�r-�>,. _ M- �• 13arbur • is a ' Transit LRT unne O tions TAY14R5 ffRRY Center - Cut and Cover n .. 1 - y - Short bored .• �� . ,�. �,, t A. 7 �r Aa "rte tong bored v �'�•r+i!t•■ �, *_ _�,■ ti+ � :ice ! ' r ;, i f R AdP013� ■r * r a ■ 1' 4-1 11■ ■ J ! ILMA tI ■ I 1 * � ,� ,�• � ��tr Q�TI`' M ti `'re r - fir + k�■ Ai,ul. ,■ K� 9 "r OF - P �luljltamw "r q� s M�°�� !.,■ {���� y � 'a IRI � ■, � y�Ile Y^R� ' ��_-i{+g� � � +���_ f =11, q.7 ti t 3;s!` �f b i ,� fi ii�>< �iy• +rF�f.'R 71 '"r'#!'f►'d�6i P lrlll��M MP c r YY 7 I 41 PCC VIA ° CUT&COVER ° ■ i r fl � t " TUNNEL ' QI "W1141 ` kPCC VIA/■ ■ ■ < .� aR.. .. i1�1■.i� ;?y SHORT BORED TUNNEL "� Light Rail Tunnel Options Tigard Tunnel Segments Triangle a PCC r Sylvania ;k s cC)D Other Light Rail Options PCC' LONGBORED ORED + TUNNEL ," � ■■ � �, 'a - `" -� 0 '/a mile r , GREAT PLACES -Worr dor • • Public i Should the steering committee Responses from Jan- Feb on I i ne continue more detailed Study of the light rail tunnel options? survey ( 2400 responses) 2, 151 responses • Did not ask about trade-offs yes West Portland Park NA survey " . undecided • 42% support for tunnel • Greater interest in BRT connection no Far Southwest NA survey • 67% opposed to bored tunnel GAEAT PLACES -Worr dor Reasons to not study PCC Sylvania tunnel in DEIS ❑ Ridership gains < cost ❑ Substantial trade-offs ✓ Shortened alignment with less ridership ✓ Less funding for station connectivity and local bike/ped/road projects ❑ Neighborhood impacts ❑ Unclear ROI on campus ❑ Viable alternate connections tz3. Barbur v • :� i Transit Barbu ralignment .�, �, Center +tel uv�! Enhanced w r . �.I., � ♦1 lam•' f b.f �, �rH.�. �u.�,*�,� - 'r w-- - '• .!k�!e��"�i � i�M�'n''�.,lf�w �-'`� 'jai �.��t�.�i � JY' �YY." � . - 'rk•■ ,,1�� is IVA '�Yai il"�.'/elfiNkA3. �� � r■ .ear . "� .1�� y w- r Ao Va N ;qt•� O iii' ML 7 .y � Nil a ■a o I ..'' !"� •I�, V� /�y� � � _ f' r VI tp i. 64 s.i�' � � ■ ." 4 �- .iE� '.p i r':I � .i. � .q.-p rr i. r j '�� �f - . , L i.: ... �p r • j1jjd 16 o � r x ■ ARgUR O , millo 4 1. "tlil O' ILA - " ijr M1 ' �, Potential walk/bike or Q aerial tram connection from '�� ' �'� •�. ° I v" • © Barbur & 53rd station p _ Y - ° 1 z a ?� ,. �. o ' o ,. r � 1 +�► "" ;' f A a� '• I-ICT OPTIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION I. 11 $'$ Tigard I � , ite� > !� TrianglPCC a! +e � Options for LRT e, � � r ,F`� -.j ! � j Sylvania ,�� ip � ."� 000o Potential connection options ?apt- 0 1/a mile G R E A T P L A C E S OHSUAerial Tram r may -—— County Boundary Multnomah o r -- Urban Growth Boundary Village h r dog Uir00 �oMaN J 4._ Barbur/ Iiiiiiiiii5l arbur 1 Transit Center LRT + r I Triangle STW rl rl PCC Bus Hub 1 and Busway STEPHEN ampus ti PCC C ` 4,� � Tia � ylv-ni'—` i nang e ^—+ ——— ———� 1 C�ACKAf�AS c:Q, T Bridge connecting Bus Hub �DowTigard PCC Busway to `rte Tigard ! Triangle STW � zL a NICooNALf) 1 L RUSE 1 o Kruse Beveland SON7A ` 1 Way Crossing DURHAM 1' `*1" Bridgeport , s Village •EAN iALATIN c ff CHILD ^� Downtown 'V hd Tualatin nveErc '-- l5 �." i0o ,� _. Barbur , `x' - 11.+�rTransit Barbur/ k5 LRT Center 1�' + TriMet shuttle tee:` " �.+. E r` �� k ♦�, „# to campusawl 1p 'r� r. " . .• mss•. ,,�. JA j •�. I V -lay k4 Vtk W1 ®ro INK.: " `■''�■., a ! t r sr "; ~ Yi. fit,'j. sem$ •: Y ■ _ - ` `r!� a �1IJ6 ■ u .0 BAR p �� w Potent al walk/bike or .�s M + Q aerial trap connection from •o. ° I v# • © Barbu{ & 53rd station ° IQ " p ti 1 - - `J 2 H p 1 + ql = p IMP + 0 11116, dw 1 +�► "" ;!• f A a� '• I-ICT OPTIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION I. Ti and � ' • 1 �.� �. �, � `,� � � � , > !� F' CIC�:) Options for LRT 5'gR� Triangle, PCC r _.j ! Sylvaniaoopo Potential connection options 'W tr � • + a "� �F ' 1 ; > •L" 0 1/a mile y � r Lar i Barbur Transit TAYLORS FERRr► Y . Center Barbur/ 1 -5 LRT .y t + Aer'ial tram w r 'in "i ( or other mechanizeda W . ry � ,, :,� � ...ad" �s . '60-Ir tys. /6 41 ;W -1 1 1 . connection ) *11111 rA+ AVIMoilq s; - "`�. y_� N y. f • I r'W _ ;!• '.ui,ie OWN - � '� w.♦.♦ 1 . 1a t i' u r'i `i� w��� y 111.'1. d 16 � - ,•■s+� 7 +.-r' �� � �w �a '�nf� -�._ � ..it� - ,'•s �� � jj.� ! `Ib"♦:"l. . % ld WN , ti N NOW •6A'.F� "1.by y r R"Ai b I 1r :1 �p w Potential walk/bike or + it?* aerial tram connection from '�� '' ,' �• ° 1 "' • Barbur & 53rd station ♦ v q r � 1 + +�/ ♦ A A d� r'XI-ICT OPTIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION I. 11 Tigard I � ,� ► re "�, , > .� Y, Ir 'S ++ � Options for LRT 001R� Triangle, I PCC r a �f* Sylvania ,� 3 w 1r oggo Potential connection options a ,� F,p S. s• ,g_ 1 r ♦1 '•> IP,. 0 +/a mile GAEAT PLACES -Worr dor Goals for connections • Increased transit ridership system-wide • Feasible to fund and construct the project • Affordable, cost-efficient transit system operations • Fast and reliable travel times on overall HCT line and to/from the campus • Neighborhood impacts and benefits • Broad transit access to campus (north, south, east, west) • Support for future campus development • Support for regional climate goals • Support for PCC's transportation and climate goals GREAT RLAIE5 Corridor 419,'I,:I I'I gr In f a I'7++Crk-1T.T-W A r Pall+.l!'! High Capacity Transit Technical Evaluation: Direct and Indirect Connection Options to PCC Sylvania Campus March 11 . 2016 ww w,wcorridorplan.org SWCorrldor wear rldor p la n orego metragov 503-797-1756 GAEAT PLACES -Worr dor Next steps on improved PCC Sylvania connections 1 . Continued study, refinement and evaluation 2 . EIS scoping • Public input on what and how to study in federal environmental review • Targeting August - September GAEAT PLACES -Worr dor Upcoming Steering Committee meetings May 9 Decisions on Mode and PCC tunnel Update on SIS projects June 13 Endorse HCT Preferred Package End Refinement, Begin next phase DEIS scoping preview TTAC 2016 Planning Month / Date Actions/Main Points January 6 Sidewalk gaps program; Complete Streets overview; Year-end review February 3 (Draft) OR Bike & Ped Plan; Funding overview; Elections March 2 Tigard Triangle & River Terrace Updates; Goal setting April 6 SW Service Enhancement Plan (TriMet); FY17-22 CIP planning May 4 SW Corridor update (Metro); Traffic calming proposal June 1 Traffic calming proposal; FY17-22 CIP planning July 6 (CANCELLED) August 3 FY18 CIP planning ; Traffic calming proposal September 7 FY18 CIP planning; Council meeting preparations October 5 FY18 CIP presentation; Council meeting preparations (Oct TBD) November 2 FY18 CIP prioritization; FY16 project/budget review December 7 (Tentatively CANCELLED)