AGENDA BILL. Beaverton City Council Beaverton, Oregon

Transcription

1 AGENDA BILL Beaverton City Council Beaverton, Oregon SUBJECT: Metro Southwest Corridor Plan FOR AGENDA OF: 06-18=13 BILL NO~ ~~~~8 Mayor's Approval: DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: l)~~ Public wor~ DATE SUBMITTED: CLEARANCES: CAO 'YJAL- City Attorney tj~"~v CEDD 1"=:1':"'. Engineering 4I<A...J PROCEEDING: PRESENTATION EXHIBITS: 1. Draft Recommendation 2. Evaluation Report: High Capacity Transit 3. Public Involvement Activities Summary BUDGET IMPACT EXPENDITURE AMOUNT APPROPRIATION REQUIRED $-0- BUDGETED $-0- REQUIRED $-0 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council to listen to the presentation by Metro. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE: The Southwest Corridor Plan is a partnership between Metro, Multnomah County, Washington County, the Oregon Department of Transportation, TriMet, and the cities of Beaverton, Portland, Sherwood, Tigard, Tualatin, Durham, King City and Lake Oswego to study local land use and transportation plans and develop a viable high capacity transit (HCT) strategy and complementary transportation projects for the corridor. These investments will support corridor growth, livability, and economic prosperity. Since the study began in mid-2011, Council has had two discussions on the study and received periodic updates from Metro and City staff. Phase I is nearing completion. Using local land use and transportation plans, fivehct scenarios along with a set of priority transportation improvements were assessed to test which work best given jurisdictions' land use, transportation, and economic development plans. The outcome will be a single Shared Investment Strategy that will proceed to Phase 2 refinemeqtplanning and on to environmental assessment in order to acquire federal funds and local matching funds for implementation. INFORMATION FOR CONSIDERATION: The Southwest Corridor Plan Steering Committee is scheduled to make a July decision on the Shared Investment Strategy based on the Phase I HCT evaluation and the r~sults of the analysis to find the most valuable transportation projects that will help implement the transit and land use visions in the corridor. The single Shared Investment Strategy will include a representative HCT alignment Agenda B.II No: _

2 Light rail and bus rapid transit (within a fixed guideway or within mixed traffic) along with local transit connections are recommended for further study. The recommended destination is Tualatin via Tigard based on ridership potential, operational efficiency, and housing and employment plans for these two cities. The closest HCT alignment to Beaverton is along 99W where both light rail and bus rapid transit are being considered. TriMet has already begun work with jurisdictions and stakeholders to develop the local Southwest Service Enhancement Plan to connect to HCT. Exhibit 1, the discussion draft recommendation, provides a complete summary of the corridor plan process to date. Page 2 provides a summary of the single Shared Investment Strategy recommendation. Page 7 provides a timeline and issues list for the process to narrow the potential HCT alternatives/concepts. The HCT-complementary roadway, active transportation, and parks and natural resource project identification process is described on page 8, which also includes the high priority roadway-related project list. This list does not include any projects on streets under City of Beaverton jurisdiction. Future Strategic Investment Strategy actions are described on page 12. Exhibit 2 is the Evaluation Report: High Capacity Transit. This report explains the HCT transit analysis and alternatives that were modeled and how each performed. Light rail and bus rapid transit, within a fixed guideway or within mixed traffic along with local transit connections were analyzed for each segment of the corridor. Exhibit 3 is a summary of public comment and public outreach activities past and future. At the meeting, Metro Councilor Dirksen and his staff will present the draft recommendation to Council and describe the next steps necessary to secure federal funding to implement a chosen HCT solution. Agenda Bill No: 13128

3 Exhibit 1 DISCUSSION DRAFT, June 5, 2013 Draft PTL recommendation investments in the Southwest Corridor T aking The Southwest Corridor Plan and Shared Investment Strategy is an outcomes-oriented effort focused on supporting community-based development and placemaking that targets, coordinates and leverages public investments to make efficient use of public and private resources. The plan was developed to support achieving four balanced goals: Accountability and partnership Partners manage resources responsibly, foster collaborative investments, implement strategies effectively and fairly, and reflect community support. Prosperity People can live, work, play and learn in thriving and economically vibrant communities where everyday needs are easily met. Health People live in an environment that supports the health of the community and ecosystems. Access and mobility People have a safe, efficient and reliable network that enhances economic vitality and quality of life. Steering committee members Metro Councilor Craig Dirksen, co-chair Metro Councilor Bob Stacey, co-chair Tigard Mayor John Cook Beaverton Mayor Denny Doyle Portland Mayor Charlie Hales Lake Oswego Coundlor Skip O'Neill TriMet general manager Neil McFarlane Sherwood Mayor Bill Middleton Tualatin Mayor Lou Ogden Washington County Commissioner Roy Rogers Durham Mayor Gery Schirado Multnomah County Commissioner Loretta Smith ODOT Region 1 manager Jason Tell King City Commissioner Suzan Turley Overview This document presents a draft recommendation and action plan for the Southwest Corridor Plan Steering Committee to consider. This packet includes: a draft recommendation, to be revised and confirmed in July priority projects to be considered for the final investment package considerations for improvements to the regulatory environment to best leverage public investments. The steering committee will be asked to issue its draft recommendation on July 8,2013. Outstanding issues will be addressed and the final recommendation will be affirmed on July 22, Vision and context The work has been guided by a steering committee that includes representatives from Southwest Corridor cities, counties and agencies. Six major planning efforts are coordinated with this effort: Portland Barbur Concept Plan Sherwood Town Center Plan Tigard HCT Land Use Plan Linking Tualatin Southwest Transportation Plan Transit Alternatives Analysis. The project partners have defined a set of potential investments that support land use, transportation, and community-building goals in the corridor - a Shared Investment Suategy - to implement the shared Southwest Corridor vision. The policies and projects are all aimed at supporting development that is consistent with the communities' aspirations for key places in the corridor. Overview 1 Vision and context 1 Shared investment strategy 2 The Southwest Corridor Land use VISion 3 Integrating public investments to support great places 5 AClion 6 Investments in the public realm 6 Development strategy 10 AClion chart 12 \

4 Summary of the Southwest Corridor Plan Shared Investment Strategy recommendation 1. Investments in the public realm Aset of potential investments that will inform local capital improvement plans and transportation system plan development TriMet's Transit Investment Priorities, and the next update of the Regional Transportation Plan. Transit investments Enhanced local transit service to support the development of key places in the Southwest Corridor and connection to many places outside the corridor (page 6) A narrovved set of high capacity transit alternatives for further study to inform a future steering committee decision about what, if any. transit investments to consider under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (pages 6 and 7) Roadway and active transportation investments A set of roadway and active transportation investments that are highly supportive of the narrovved set of high capacity transit alternatives (page 8) A set of roadway and active transportation investments that are highly supportive of the land use vision for key places in the Southwest Corridor, including existing centers and corridors as well as growing employment and industrial areas (page 8) Parks and natural resource investments A set of projects including parks. trails and natural resource enhancements to support the quality of life in key places, address "green" needs in the corridor, and leverage transportation investments (page 9) 2. Regulatory environment and development catalyst investments These include proposed policy changes and development incentives for consideration by project partners. DISCUSSION DRAFT, June 5, 2013 Shared Investment Strategy Public actions can influence development in three main ways: by regulations and policies, by investments in the public realm, and by development incentives that catalyze ptivate investment. The Southwest Corridor Plan and Shared Investment Strategy address all three of these areas. Moving from current conditions to community visions.. Regulations and policies Community vision......> Goals Zoning changes., Development requirements ~,.,~ -0<: Policy coordination.u~ ~,~ Investments in the public realm ~*o..l.;: c... <:" High capacity transit R~"" f$'':; Roadway expansions or improvements,lp o~ Bike and pedestrian facilities improvements Q" :<:-;;. Green (parks. natural areas and natural resources) improvements ~~ Development incentives that catalyze private investment Public development grants such as through the transit-oriented development program Current development,~ \~

5 The Southwest Corridor land Use Vision - a community vision for places throughout the corridor Each city in the Southwest Corridor began this collaborative effort by looking at their downtowns, main streets, corridors and employment areas to define a vision for these places that reflects their unique characteristics and local aspirations. The area contains a wealrh of opportunities for jobs and stable neighborhoods Households Jobs and is expected to grow significantly in the future. The corridor contains important regional retail and employment destinations as well as many major trails and the nation's only urban national wildlife refuge. The Southwest Corridor Land Use Vision compiles local land use plans and puts them into a common language, creating a foundation for the many projects (ranging from transportation to parks) to be categorized and prioritized based on how well they support the shared corridor land use vision. The corridor vision emphasizes maintaining and enhancing the many stable single-family neighborhoods, while allowing for growth in certain places that create more services for existing residents as well as more housing, employment and transportation choices in the future. The areas of change are described in four categories: Retaillcommercial The corridor is a destination for retail with three prominent shopping destinations in Washington Square, Bridgeport Village, and Six Corners. These retail destinations will continue to generate substantial demand and will need accommodation through enhanced transit, active transportation and roadway investments. Employment/industrial The Southwest Corridor includes a regional employment district with significant current employment and anticipated growth as new jobs move into the Tigard Triangle and the industrial areas of Tualatin and Sherwood. Mixed use Intended to include a mix of housing, employment and services in a walkable environment. Good access to transit with high quality pedestrian and bike facilities are critical elements for these mixed use areas to help leverage infill and redevelopment. Higher intensity residenriallnfill and redevelopment is going to be the primary generator for new development in the corridor. The majority of residential development that does occur will be found in the mixed-use areas. DISCUSSION DRAFT, June 5, 2013, To develop the land use vision, each city identified key places and categorized them based on the importance of a high capacity transit investment to connect them. These key places were used to draw the draft high capacity transit alternatives, thus ensuring that the transportation solution supports the community's vision for growth. The prioritized key places also help focus investments for other types of transportation as well as parks and natural resources. Aelaill C~rc.i;J,1 Ernplo~n,.nll Induttrial tugtt., Int~mity!losldlntlal.." ~ =.'t:..,~_ \~

6 DISCUSSION DRAFT, June 5, 2013 Public involvement for Phase I s.ptember 2011 to February 2012: What should be the focus of the plan? The first public engagement stage of the Southwest Corridor Plan was held september 2011 to February 2012 and aimed to determine the scope. evaluation framework and goals of the overall plan. In that process. project partners focused on announcing the integrated planning effort, informing the public about the background and elements of the plan, and asking residents what they value about their communities. Residents and business people were asked about challenges and opportunities in the corridor and their visions for the future of the area. The information and ideas offered informed decisionmakers as they determined the scope and goals of the plan. During the public comment period of sept. 28 through Oct. 28, 2011, respondents posted their thoughts on boards at an open house and community events and submitted 98 public comments via the online questionnaire, mail and . ~ 2012 to August 2012: How should the wide range of pot8ntlal projects be nanvwed7 The second public engagement stage of was held February 2012 to August 2012 and aimed to demonstrate and validate the screening process of narrowing the wide range of ideas to a narrowed list of potential projects. From June 22 through July 31, 2012, project partners hosted an online, virtual open house. Participants in the online open house viewed VIdeo feeds that explained the purpose and process of the overall plan. Participants were then directed to a related questionnaire that asked whether the sources of projects for the corridor were considered comprehensive and if the process for narrowing that list to move forward reflected the values of the communities in the corridor. The questionnaire received 543 responses. An existing conditions summary, an executive summary and technical reports were produced during this time. Outlining the unique physical, economic and demographic elements of the corridor, the reports identified existing challenges and potential opportunities in economic development, housing choices, natural areas, trails and health for the corridor. August to oec.mber 2012: How should investments be prioritized? Public engagement at this stage of the plan focused on discussions of the benefits and tradeoffs of different types of investments, beginning with the premise that we cannot afford everything. Benefits and tradeoffs were framed by the Southwest Corridor Plan goals of health, access and mobility, and prosperity in the Southwest Corridor. During the public comment period, 2,098 people visited the project website to learn about the Southwest Corridor Plan, 695 submissions to Shape Southwest were made, 471 electronic questionnaires were submitted, and 20 paper-version questionnaires were received. Two Spanish-language questionnaires and no Vietnamese-language questionnaires were received. January to July 2013: Are these the right things to move forward? What investments would you make to support great communities from Sherwood to Portland? During this stage of public involvement, project staff provided briefings to community groups and municipal committees and sponsored public events to gather feedback that will inform decision-making. Events included an open house hosted by SW Neighborhoods, Inc. on April 25, participation in the Tigard Town Hall on April 30, an economic summit on May 21 and a community planning forum on May 23 to gather feedback on potential projects and the draft high capacity transit alternatives. This opportunity for input was replicated through an online questionnaire that will be open between May 23 and June 26. The public will be given an opportunity to review the Southwest Corridor Plan draft recommendation and give feedback in an additional online questionnaire from June 11 to 26. The draft recommendation will be the focus of the final community planning forum on June 26. Public input will be delivered to decision-makers in advance of the July 8 meeting. The third public engagement stage was held August to December 2012 and aimed to set the framework for shared investment strategies based on potential projects that were identified in the previous stage. From Nov. 14, 2012 to Jan. I, 2013, project partners hosted the online interactive Shape Southwest game and associated questionnaire. A paper version of the questionnaire was distributed in English, Spanish and Vietnamese to libraries and agencies serving environmental justice communities to engage residents without computer access. Community planning forums were convened on Oct. 9 and Dec. 3, During this time, project staff hosted booths at community events and briefed community groups, specifically to engage environmental justice communities. Additionally, community group briefings were held by project partner staff focusing on the local land use plans but also highlighting the Southwest Corridor Plan. ~

7 DISCUSSION DRAFT, June 5, 2013 Integrating public investments to support great places The Southwest Corridor Plan aims to use limited public resources wisely by targeting them in identified key places to support the local land use vision. It also sets the stage to look at how investments in transportation projects, parks and habitat improvements can be made together. This allows for efficiencies in planning and the ability to achieve multiple goals in targeted areas. The Southwest Corridor Plan goals ditect us to collaborate, target resources and search for opportunities to leverage dollars. Collaborate The project partners agree to work together to implement common prioritized projects that support the land use vision. The private sector can bring investment in buildings, retail businesses, and jobs that help make great places. Nonprofit partners and other public agencies play an essential role in ensuring that the Southwest Corridor continues to equitably and sustainably provide opportunities for a diverse range of people and maintains the green identity so important to current and future residents. In future phases, project partners should identify best practices and proven implementation strategies to help private, public and non-profit agencies work together to make the Southwest Corridor vision a reality. Target resources Focusing on the Corridor Land Use Vision has enabled project partners to limit the number of projects included ~~~~~,;.;~~~ in the shared investment strategy. A smaller prioritized list ~rrjlela.fi.~~~;j makes it easier to work together to fund and implement a? - ~1\~f'W1-9» set of common priorities. ~~~~~".~1\ By working together and listening to the public, the project Does Ihe project suppon the community panners narrowed a wide ranging list of roadway and "nd corrodor wsron7 active transponation projects from almost $4 billion to Does the project meet "ansportatlon about $500 million. The list includes projects that would needs and lo(all~nd use goals7 be highly supponive of a future high capacity transit can we afford II and when? investment, and a strategic list of projects that support the land use vision in the corridor. Are there too many Impacts7 <).~ _.IlEll1\.~-(}o~o(r A~~~fI.~1\~fI. ~ """<Jo~ 1\~~~ Ji5.~ ~+1\~~ -(}o~.1\~ ~ ~1\~1\-O-1\ 1\~ The Southwest Corridor Plan includes the region's first coordinated list of parks, trails and natural resource projects for implementation in tandem with rransportation projects to suppon the community vision. The project panners created a list of nearly 450 projects gathered from local parks master plans, habitat improvement lists, and other sources. This was narrowed to the smaller list of parks, trails and natural resource projects included in the Shared Investment Strategy. The list serves as a strategic resource to help project partners identify projects that leverage the benefits of - and funding for - transponation projects in the shared investment strategy. Leverage Great places are defined by a variety of elements that congregate in one location to meet a range of community needs. Investing in a road improvement might not create a great place - but combining ir with a trail, a culvert replacement and bus Stop improvements makes it more likely to help catalyze the market and attract privare investment to build the community vision. The narrowed lisrs of projects that are oriented towards specific places can serve as a tool for agencies to work with when making future investment decisions. Even more imponant is continued communication between agencies, borh internal (e.g., city transportation, parks and environmental services depanments) and external (e.g., city transportation and county transponation or TriMet). Add examples Add photo or diagram from pro forma work \lj\

8 Action The Southwest Corridor Plan and Shared Investment Strategy is an outcomes-oriented effort targeted towards implementing the projects that support the Corridor land use vision over the next 15 years. This includes exploring policy changes and development incentives as well as a straregic project list for rransit, roadway, active transportation and parks and natural resources. The Southwest Corridor Evaluation results, project parmer priorities, and public inpur provided the foundarion for the Shared Invesrment Strategy. It is understood rhat many Southwest Corridor communities have uansportation needs outside the boundaries of this plan, and will likely consider significant investments in other corridors during the time frame covered by the Southwest Corridor Plan. The Southwest Corridor Shared Investment Strategy is not intended to be a comprehensive listing of all prioriry projects in the area. Rather, it is a list of projects and policies that best meet the land use goals and objectives approved by the Southwest Corridor Steering Committee in this early phase of the project. As project partners consider development and transportation needs in a variery of locations and corridors in their communities, the Shared Investment Suategy defines specific actions, responsibiliry, timeframe and potential resources that are critical to supporting the Southwest Corridor Land Use Vision. Investments in the public realm Transit In July, the Steering Committee is being asked to give direction on three main questions to further narrow the options for a potential high capaciry uansit investment to serve the corridor land use vision. These questions include: modes (bus rapid transit and/or light rail) for furthet study, percentage of bus rapid transit dedicated transitway, and the destination of a potential high capaciry uansit investment. Additionally, the steering committee will identify the key questions to be answered during a refinement phase as the project partners define a project for analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The following is the staff recommendation for further study for a Southwest Corridor transit investment. DISCUSSION DRAFT, June 5, 2013 Local service/southwest Corridor service enhancement Local transit connections will be essential to achieving the land use vision in the Southwest Corridor, as well as to the success of a potential high capaciry transit investment. In , TriMet will work with Southwest Corridor jurisdictions and stakeholders to develop the Southwest Service Enhancement Plan. This recommendation directs TriMet to implement Southwest Service Enhancement Plan to provide the following: 1. uansit service that connects key Southwest Corridor locations quickly and reliably to one another and to a potential high capaciry transit line These include but are not limited to: Beaverton, Washington Square, Lake Oswego, King City, Durham, Tualatin industrial areas, and downtown Sherwood. This includes improved local transit circulation from the Southwest Corridor throughout Washington Counry, including connections to northern Washington County. 2. improved local transit connections to Westside Express Service 3. capital improvements necessary to achieve higher uansit system functioning, such as "queue jumps" and/or re-orientation of existing transit lines to better connecr key corridor areas and a future high capacity transit system 4. identification of improvements cities and counties can make for better rransit access (e.g., sidewalks and safe pedestrian crossings). Mode Both light rail and bus rapid transit are recommended as modes for further study based on (l) the high ridership potential of both modes and (2) the need for additional design in order to produce more accurate capital cost estimates that clarify tradeoffs among cost, operating efficiency and support for the Southwest Corridor Land Use Vision. 1m EI ;:a ~ \~

9 DISCUSSION DRAFT, June 5, 2013 Bus rapid transit Exclusive transitway or mixed traffic? Bus rapid transit is a highly flexible and versatile transit mode. This also means that it can be difficult to clearly define and that every bus rapid transit project is constantly under pressure to cut costs by reducing how congestion-proof" it is. Running buses in mixed traffic is less expensive - it is also slower and has more delay with less certainty about arrival times and travel times. Bus rapid transit in mixed traffic can still be a significant improvement compared to local buses without transit priority treatments, but it cannot attract as many riders and therefore cannot support the development of a corridor as much as bus rapid transit in exclusive lanes. Because bus rapid transit is so flexible, every intersection or congestion point raises the same question during design: Should this section be "congestion-proof," or is that too problematic and should we put it in mixed traffic - or some middle ground with transit priority but not exclusive transit? The BRT Standard by the Institute for Transportation & Development Policy is one way of rating the value of an individual bus rapid transit project. Using such a rating system creates an inherent pressure to make a high-performing project, and creates a healthy tension against the tendency to lower cost, but lower benefit solutions. The standard is very high - there are only 12 gold standard projects in the world, none of which are in the United States. There is only one silver standard project in the United States: Cleveland's HealthUne. For more information on the BRT Standard by the Institute for Transportation & Development Policy, visit micrositeslthe-brt-standard-20 13/. Percentage of bus rapid transit in dedicated transitway As bus rapid transit is studied as a potential high capacity transit mode, it is recommended that between 50 and 100 percent of the route runs in exclusive right of way. Federal Transit Administration "New Starts" funding is only available for bus rapid transit projects with 50 percent or more of the project in dedicated transitway, and experience around the U.s. and internationally suggests that bus rapid transit with a higher level of exclusive transirway would best support the Southwest Corridor Land Use Vision. The Institute for Transportation & Development Policy has developed a bus rapid transit certification system that rates project performance. As bus rapid transit advances for further study, it is recommended that project partners aim for a project that meets Institute for Transportation & Development Policy certification standards. Destination The recommended destination for further study for a high capaciry transit investment is Tualatin, via Tigard. This recommendation is based. ~..~ on ridership potential, :<.'~ operational efficiency, and plans for increased housing and employment in Tigard 25 and Tualatin. Funding Capital funding for construction of major transit projects comes from a variery of sources, including competitive grants and federal, state and regional funds. Transit operations (both bus and high capacity transit) are funded by passenger fares and ~b Steering committee decisions: high capadty transit With this recommendation, the steering committee will have narrowed the potential high capacity transit alternatives/concepts from 10 to two. Future decisions will include determining the alignment, lane treatments, specific funding strategies, mode, station locations and connections for the rest of the transit system. October 2012 JulyZOU mid early 2017 Narrow from Direction on Refinement Draft 10 alternatives Southwest Alignments Environmental concepts to five (Transit) Service Impact Enhancement Naito or Barbur? Statement Plan Surface or tunnel Mode (if light rail)? Policy direction Station locations on "level" of Direct connection BRT for further to PCC? Transit system study connections Hall or 72nd? Which modes to Add a lane or carry forward convert a lane! for further study Destination Potential station locations Funding strategies The OCtober 2012 decision removed streetcar to Sherwood, high capacity transit connection between Tigard and Sherwood on Highway 99W, and the idea of adding or converting an Interstate 5 lane for high occupancy vehicle or high occupancy transit lane from further consideration and tabled consideration of WES improvements for another time and process. This recommendation would remove the option of the "hub and spoke without transfer and bus rapid transit between Tualatin and Sherwood from consideration and would provide that a bus rapid transit alignment would require at least 50 percent dedicated right of way. a regional payroll tax. Any high capaciry transit project would likely seek competitive federal funding through the Federal Transit Administration (ITA) which has contributed more than half the total funding for MAX projects to date. High capaciry transit will require a corridor-wide funding strategy that secures and leverages new resources, possibly including a competitive grant from the Federal Transit Administration to fund a high capaciry transit investment. An ITA grant would most likely require a 50 percent match which can include local, regional, state and other non-ita federal funds. - \~

10 Roadway and active transportation Over the past 18 monrhs the project partners worked ro narrow a large list of roadway and active transportation projects ro a smaller list of projects that are most supporrive of the HCT recommendation and the Southwest Corridor Land Use Vision. Project partners narrowed from close to $4 billion worth of projects to around $500 million. This agreed-upon narrowed list of projects SetS the stage for the project partners to cooperatively idenrify and leverage funding from a variery of sources. This will be critical, in light of the severe constrainrs on available transporration funding. Even the narrowed list of roadway and active transportation projects is more than five times greater than the projected $60 million in state and regional funds anricipated to be available in the Corridor over the next 15 years. Projects on the narrowed list fall inro one of two categories: 1. Projects to be studied further in the Southwest Corridor Plan refinement phase This includes roadway and active transportation projects that could be highly supporrive for the success of a high capaciry transit investmenr. While this group of projecrs has been idenrified as highly supporrive of a potenrial high capaciry transit investmenr, not all of them can necessarily be included in an evenrual high capacity transit funding package (for example, about $35 40 million was included as parr of the Porrland-Milwaukie Light Rail Project). This will be a future decision based on prioriry judgmenrs by project parmers during refinemenr and efforrs ro best match Federal Transit Administration funding requiremenrs. Those projects that are not included will be available for furrher project developmenr by project sponsors. 2. Narrowed list of projects that have been identified as highly supportive of the Southwest Corridor Land Use Vision These projecrs include roadway and active transporration projects that are available for furrher project developmenr by project sponsors. Each project has been idenrified as highly supportive of a particular land use rype in the corridor: commercial, freighrlemploymenr, mixed use, or higher inrensity residenrial. Projects were selected based on geographic facrors, project characteristics, stakeholder input and/or evaluation results. As stared earlier, these lists are not inrended to idenrify all projects that are imporranr ro communities in the Southwest Corridor. Instead, they represenr a set of projects that are highly supportive of corridor land use and high capacity transit goals based on the. narrowing approach inrended ro target and leverage limited public dollars. The lists will inform local capital improvement plans and transporration system plan development, TriMet's Transit Investment Priorities, and the next update of the Regional Transporration Plan. Projects on local and regional transporration investmenr plans that are not included in the Shared Investmenr Strategy will remain on those local and regional plans unless the jurisdiction chooses ro remove them. Attachment A includes the project lists and narrowing criteria. DISCUSSION DRAFT, June 5, 2013 Roadway projects supportive of iand use goals and high capacity transit, by specific development type Lake Oswego - Land use Boones Ferry Road Boulevard improvements (turn lanes with blke/ped. - Madrona to Kruse Way) Portland - High capacity transit South Portland C"culation and ConnectiVity (Ross Island Bridge ramp connections) Barbur Blvd, SW (3rd - Terwilliger): Multi-modal Improvements Barbur Blvd, SW (Terwilliger - City Limits): Multi-modal Improvements Barbur Signals (add signalized intersections) Capitol Hwy Improvements (replace roadway and add Sidewalks) SW 53rd and Pomona (improves safety of ped!bike users) Portland - Land use -- Barbur Road Diet Capitol to Hamilton (reduce northbound lanes from three to two with multi-modal Improvements) Barburfferwilliger Intersealon Ped JBike Improvements Barbur Lane Diet: Terwilliger to Capitol Barbur/ Capitol HwyJ Huber/ Taylors Ferry Intersection Safety Improvements Naito/South Portland Improvements (left turn pockets with bike/ped; remove tunnel, ramps and Vladuct) SW Portland! Crossroads Multimodal Proiect (roadway realignments and modifications 10 Barbur Blvd., Capitol Hwy., and the 1-5 southbound on-ramp) Tigard - High capacity transit -- Ash Avenue railroad crossing (new roadway) Atlanta Street Extension (new roadway) '098 Hall Boulevard Widening, Bonita Road to Durham HalVHunziker/ScoHins Intersection Realignment Hwy. 217 Over-crossing - Hunziker Hampton Connection 68th Avenue (widen to 3 lanes) Hall Boulevard Widening, Highway 99W to Fanno Creek Hall Boulevard Widening, McDonald Street to Fanno Creek including creek bridge Tigard - Land use Highway g9w access management In Tigard ill.j Hall Boulevard Widening, Oleson to 99W Tualatin - High capacity transit Boones Ferry Road (reconstuetlwiden from Martinazzi to Lower Boones Ferry) Tualatin - Land use -- Tualatin-Sherwood Rd. (Langer Parkway to Teton Ave.) - Widening to 5 lanes with pedjblke (Tualatin and Sherwood) Cipole Rd. (widen to 3 lanes With pedjbike) Herman (multi-modal improvements, Teton to Tualatin Rd.) Herman (multi-modal Improvements, Cipole to 124th) Sherwood - Land use Arrow Street (Herman Road) - Build 3 lanes With sidewalks and bike lanes Town Center Signal & Intersection Improvements (Downtown Sherwood) Tualatin-Sherwood Rd. (Langer Parkway to Teton Ave.) - Widening to 5 lanes with pedjblke (Sherwood and Tualatin) Oregon-Tonquin Intersection & Street Improvements Key Retail/commercial Mixed use Employmentindustrial Higher intensity residential \~

11 DISCUSSION DRAFT, June 5, 2013 Parks and natural resource projects Parks, trails, natural areas and street trees provide the "green" element of communities that is consistently prioritized by corridor residents as part of what draws them to live, work and play in the Southwest Corridor. Project partners originally identified nearly 450 projects in the corridor, this recommendation includes a narrowed list of "green" projects - parks, trails, natural areas, stormwater facilities, green streets and natural resource enhancements like wildlife corridors and improved culverts for fish passage. The projects on the list were identified as supporting the Southwest Corridor Land Use Vision, the potential high capaciry transit investment, and important water resource and regional trail connections. Project partners are currently reviewing this refined list and will identify any recommended changes by the July 8 steering committee meeting. As the high capaciry transit alternative is refined, the next step in sorting and prioritizing "green" projects in the Southwest Corridor may be for partners to examine the likely funding sources and develop a collective strategy for grant writing and the strategic use of other available or new funds. A refined project list could be developed based on this shared funding strategy. Importantly, the project list does not include the numerous impacts and mitigation projects that would be required as a result of a new transit corridor, road and street construction and redevelopment. As land use and transportation projects are implemented, Southwest Corridor partners will work to identify relationships to or impacts on nearby or adjacent "green" projects. This strategy recommends prioritizing those projects that offer multiple benefits and a higher return on investment for the public's resources, regardless of the source of those funds. Attachment B includes the narrowed list of proiects and the parks and natural areas narrowing methodology. Documents that support this action and provide key information for further phases Charter Dec. 12, 2011 ( Vision, goals and objectives May 14, 2012 ( Existing conditions summary report Apri/18, 2012 ( Opportunity and housing report January 2012 ( Health assessment January 2012 ( Project lists and development process Project bundles Feb. 5, 2013 ( 1213_small. pdf) Evaluation report Evaluation documents for future project phases Southwest corridor economic development conditions, stakeholder perspectives and investment alternatives jan. 24, 2013 ( Development case studies Public involvement report Alternatives Analysis (for submittal to FTA) \-0

12 Development strategy (regulatory environment and catalyst investments) The public sector plays a key role in the implementation of the community land use vision. There are two major tools the public sector controls that can help set the stage for development consistent with communiry goals. Those tools are the regulatory framework and the administration of financial incentives which together can help catalyze development to create market value and stimulate private investment. The regulatory framework is the area in which the public sector has the most control over development outcomes. This includes development (zoning) codes and policies that relate to land development. A goal should be to make development consistent with the communiry vision the easiest thing to do. This can be accomplished by creating a regulatory framework that is predictable and efficient, creating certainry in the private market. It also provides the communiry with certainry that future development in their communiry will be in the desired locations with a form consistent with the vision. To successfully implement a land use vision that goes beyond the existing development form requires both public support and market potential. The public sector has the abiliry to conuol the policies and code requirements that have a direct effect on the bottom line and Create a regulatory environment that supports invesunent in their communiry. The public sector can also help catalyze development through the strategic application of financial incentives that support new development forms that may be ahead of the market. In particular, development forms that are mixed-use or multi-story are more costly and may require rents that are above current market demand. These higher costs can be offset through creative financing strategies and tools, helping to create value in the market and eventually enable private investments to be made without public support. By aligning the regulatory framework, suategic incentives to catalyze development and prioritizing capital investments in the public realm the public sector has a tremendous opportunity to create successful places that reflect the land use vision. New Starts competitive advantage By setting the right regulatory and financial environment the pu blic sector can catalyze the market and ideally make our region more competitive for federal capital construction dollars that are associated with the Federal Transit Adminisuation's New Starts program. These guidelines provide a series of actions that local governments can take to leverage a transit investment, including plans, policies, and financial incentives along the proposed corridor that support the adjacent land use and ideally bring more uansit riders to the system. These actions should support the following outcomes: additional, transit-supportive development in the future preservation or increase in the affordable housing supply increased population and employment concentrations. DISCUSSION DRAFT, June 5, 2013 At this phase of the Southwest Corridot Plan the focus is on identifying potential policy changes or incentives that help the region compete nationally for limited dollars. Many of these suategies are already in place in some cities in the corridor, and our region is recognized nationally for progressive land use policies. This may raise the bar for our region in terms of what we need to implement as the project partners move through a NEPA process. Regulatory framework The Southwest Corridor Land Use Vision expresses the collective aspirations of the communities in the corridor, much of which is focused on creating transit ready communities that can leverage an investment in high capacity uansit. High capacity uansit has the potential to have a catalytic effect on adjacent land uses especially if transit supportive regulations and policies are in place well in advance of the high capacity transit investment. These policies are an opportuniry to support the land use vision now and to help achieve the communiry's desired goals over time. There are a number of regulatory tools and strategies that can help foster transit ready communities; however their application differs greatly depending on the context in which they are applied. A number of these tools may specifically be identified in ITA guidance for the New Starts program. The policies that are recommended for further action by local partners include: Zoning code changes Examining density maximums and building height Non-compliant use provision Stepbacks Parking requirements and parking management Trip generation reductions Responsive parking ratios Shared parking Unbundling parking Design Layered landscapes and active open space Ground floor active use provisions Street design, streetscapes and green sueets \~

13 Financial incentives DISCUSSION DRAFT, June 5, 2013 There are a number of financial tools available to the public sector [hat can be used to help stimulare investment in strategic locations. These tools can help bridge the financial gap between what is financially feasible now and what is desired by the community. In many cases the vision that the community has is above and beyond what the current market can provide. Investments in the public realm (such as streetscape enhancements and transit investments) are one way ro send a message to the private sector that the public is commined to implementing the community vision. Regulatory tools and policies that support the vision help send this message, but direer financial incentives in key catalytic projeers provide a "proof of concept". Strategic investments in such projects can ultimately lead to increased value in the market and eventually allow for private investment without public support over time. Current market conditions are not supportive of many development forms that are envisioned for the Southwest Corridor. In particular this is rrue in areas that aspire to a higher level of amenity than what exists today. The tools below are recommended for consideration by public sector partners in areas of change rhroughout rhe Southwest Corridor to help leverage investment and new development. Vertical Housing Program Brownfield Remediation Funds System Development Charges Strategies Urban Renewal Grant programs (e.g., Metro's Transit-Oriented Development Program) Affordable housing incentives Corridor-wide policy The Southwesr Corridor refinement process should include a scope element to work in partnership with the Southwest Corridot cities, Washington County and ODOT to develop a coordinated set of multi-modal performance measures that reflect state, regional and local goals. The multimodal performance measures may vary across the corridor based on community objectives, and should provide the objectivity necessary for fair and consistent application. The measures would be intended to support both land use review and rransportation evaluation. The scope of the alternative performance measures development would likely include Intestate 5 and Highway 99W within [he Southwest Corridor, and Tualatin-Sherwood Road in the Tualatin and Sherwood Town Center areas, although the boundaries of application could vary from these limits. The intended work product would develop a set of multi-modal performance measures and associated evaluation process. This product could subsequently be considered for adoption by jurisdierions throughout the region, including Metro and the Oregon Transportation Commission. \~

14 DISCUSSION DRAFT, June 5, 2013 Strategic Investment Strategy action chart July action lead Who implements Partners Decision to refine HCT MetrolTriMet Cities, counties, ODOT alternatives for further study: 1. Level of BRT 2. Modes for further study 3. Destination Southwest Service TriMetiMetro Cities Enhancement Plan I Southwest Corridor ODOT Cities, Washington Alternative Performance County, Metro Measures Policies and incentives to Cities Metro address regulatory framework and catalyst investments RoadwaylAT projects highly MetroiTriMet ODOT, cities, counties, supportive of HCT RoadwaylAT projects highly supportive of corridor land use vision Cities, counties, ODOT Parks and natural resource Cities, counties, Metro Parks, environmental projects agencies and nonprofits Responsibility for implementation When Funding for work Notes Target date for next steps (if I applicable) 8/ MTIP Metro Early 2014 SC agreement: Mid 2014: Begin Draft Environmental 1. Refined HCT project Impact Statement (DEIS) on HCT alternative 2. Collaborative funding plan for DEIS as refined by project partners 3. Preliminary funding strategy for HCT projed Early 2017: Target end date for DEIS and Locally Preferred Alternative decision TriMet wi some Vision for future transit service throughout 2015: Implement service enhancements Metro staff support the area, including connedions to HCT. Long- and revisit over time based on local term enhancements will be guided by TriMet's improvements financial capacity and by local jurisdidion access improvements /2014 ODOT Coordinate work during refinement of HCT alternative Timing depends 'Cities Milestones for specific cities will be tied to Spring 2014: Define specific policy on jurisdidion and progress on HCT projed with an aim to address considerations for projed partners to dired connedion FTA guidelines and help the region compete for pursue in coordination with DEIS and to HCT federal transit funds development of a Locally Preferred Alternative Metro During refinement some projeds will be Mid 2014: Partners will define which determined to fit with HCT projed as refined projects are packaged with the HCT alternative for NEPA As funding Projed sponsor Projed sponsors will take responsibility becomes available to implement their projects with some collaborative efforts to seek funding, particularly for projects identified as early opportunities; projed sponsors adions may include projed design and engineering, public outreach and working with regional partners to include the projed in the Regional Transportation Plan Projed sponsor and Projed partners will take responsibility Mid 2014: Identify projects that may be for projects related Metro will look at to implement their projects and work part of HCT alternative for NEPA tohct projeds that could collaboratively to seek grant opportunities and be part of HCT other funding alternative I \~

15 Steering Committee Draft Exhibit 2 Revised June 4, 2013 Evaluation Report: High Capacity Transit SW Corridor Plan High Capacity Transit Plan Alternatives for Evaluation lrt to Tigard The alternatives shown in red were analyzed using the regional travel demand model. Potential impacts are analyzed at a conceptual level. Elements of each, as well as options, which are shown in yellow, would be available to mix and match to define alternatives to be studied further. BRT to Tigard High upa<ity Trllnsit (Hal _ MCIAlWnlrn llqoilrxltl HC'lOplOl" lo'o.-fllod 1.~".1I1troe _~~IOlt.t - W1:1t.. 131,;..-

16 Steering Committee Draft Revised June 4, 2013

17 Steering Committee Draft Revised June 4,2013 Table of Contents Introduction 5 Purpose Methodology Descriptions of Alternatives Modeled 9 LRT to Tigard 9 BRT to Tigard BRT to Tualatin 11 BRT to Sherwood BRT: Hub and Spoke 13 Mode: LRT and BRT 14 Ridership 15 Service Levels Change in Annual Corridor Operating Costs 16 Operating Efficiency 17 Corridor Service Reallocation Capital Costs Magnitudes Destination: Comparison of Tigard, Tualatin and Sherwood Ridership Change in Annual Corridor Operating Costs Operating Efficiency Destination: Hub and Spoke Spokes Ridership Change in Annual Operating Costs Operating Efficiency BRT Design Limitations Southwest Service Enhancement Plan 22 Environmental Evaluation Potential Natural Resource Impacts Potential 4(f) Impacts 24 25

18 Steering Committee Draft Revised June 4,2013 List of Figures Figure 1. LRT to Tigard Figure 2. BRT to Tigard Figure 3. BRT to Tualatin Figure 4. BRT to Tualatin Segments Figure 5. BRT to Sherwood Figure 6. BRT Hub and Spoke Segments Figure 7. BRT Hub and Spoke Figure 8. LRT to Tigard Figure 9. BRT to Tigard Figure 10. Project Ridership and I\lew Transit Ridership (2035) Figure 11. Hourly Carrying Capacity and Peak Demand with Eight Vehicles/Hour Figure 12. Hourly Service Frequencies in the Peak Period Figure 13. Annual Operating Costs over No-Build (2035) Figure 14. Cost per Boarding Ride (2035) Figure 15. Local Service Using Barbur Figure 16. Project Ridership and New Transit Ridership Figure 17. Annual Operating Costs over No-Build (2035) Figure 18. Cost per Boarding (2035) Figure 19. Project Ridership and New Transit Ridership (2035) Figure 20. Cost per Boarding (2035) Figure 21. Modeled Transit Network (2035) Figure 22. Environmental Evaluation: LRT to Tigard Figure 23. Environmental Evaluation: BRT to Tigard Figure 24. Environmental Evaluation: BRT to Tualatin Figure 25. Environmental Evaluation: BRT to Sherwood Figure 26. Environmental Evaluation: BRT Hub , ,

19 Introduction Steering Committee Draft Revised June 4, 2013 Purpose The purpose of the Southwest Corridor Plan evaluation process is to assist in narrowing alternatives and defining what to continue studying to allow future definition of a preferred investment strategy for the corridor. The purpose of this report is to document the analysis of the initial set of High Capacity Transit (HCT) alignment and mode options for the Southwest Corridor Transportation Plan to support decisions about what alternatives and options to continue studying during an upcoming refinement phase of the Southwest Corridor. Modes evaluated included light rail (LRT) and a range of bus rapid transit (BRT) alternatives. The decisions to be made during this phase are: Destination (terminus) Mode or modes to carry forward for additional refinement for project development Level of investment for BRT performance This report focuses on the evaluation of HCT projects. The next stage of the study and analysis will provide more details on this narrowed set of alternative and options to support future decisionmaking about what, if any alternative to consider for further development and eventual construction. This report also touches on the crucial issue of transit service throughout the corridor, making connections between communities in the southwest and surrounding communities as well as connecting to HCT and existing WES. A followon effort will engage the public, cities, counties, businesses, neighborhoods, social service providers, and other stakeholders to define the vision for substantial increases in transit service throughout the area. Companion evaluation reports focus on: Roadway projects and motor vehicle mobility Methodology Evaluation framework The analysis in this report is derived from the vision, goals and objectives adopted by the SW Corridor Plan Steering Committee (Steering Committee) and focuses on the following goals and objectives: Goal: Accountability and partnership - Manage resources responsibly, foster collaborative investments, implement strategies effectively and fairly, and reflect community support. Objectives: Build upon existing plans, private development and investments in public infrastructure Make investments that maximize limited resources Equitably distribute the benefits and burdens of growth geographically and demographically Measures used to evaluate the accountability and partnership goal and objectives include: Cost Residential and business property impacts Goal: Access and mobility - People have a safe, efficient and reliable network that enhances economic vitality and quality of life. Objectives: Improve access to places where people live, work, play and learn Improve access, mobility and safety for all transportation modes, ages and physical abilities Improve the freight transportation system to ensure that the region and its businesses stay economically competitive Active transportation projects and impacts to the active transportation system

20 Introduction Steering Committee Draft Revised June 4, 2013 Measures used to evaluate the access and mobility goal and objectives include: Ridership Travel time Transit operating costs Operating efficiency Capital costs Households and employment within 1/2 mile of potential high capacity transit stations High Capacity Transit Alternatives The Steering Committee approved five project "bundles"-each of which included an HCT mode, alignment and alignment options-to evaluate as a step toward identifying an investment strategy. Each bundle also included a set of roadway and active transportation projects. These "bundles" are representative of a wide array of options, from which the Steering Committee can mix-and-match to define alternatives for future continued analysis. Each HCT alternative was evaluated on one representative baseline alignment. Alignment options were identified, but were not included in modeling. The modeling process is described below. Alignments and options are described on the following pages. Modeling The assumptions for lane characteristics and general station locations were developed for each baseline alignment. A range of lane treatments and routing options were ascribed to the alternatives in order to provide a breadth of information to inform decisions on what to carry forward. Key inputs included: The regionally adopted land use for the fourcounty area; Data from Metro's Household and Travel Behavior Study, which incorporates travelers' propensities to make certain types and lengths of trips; Specific road characteristics such as number of lanes, capacity, and speed limits; The 2035 Financially Constrained Regional Transportation Plan transit network with modifications representing initial concepts of TriMet's Service Enhancement Plan; Each alternative's HCT project and service, including any local service adjustments identified by TriMet, specifying mode, general stop locations, speeds, and interaction with traffic Key outputs include: Transit travel times Transit ridership by line and by stop/station System transit trips Mode share Vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled by mode. Capital cost analysis Given that the region has decades of experience with LRT, but none with BRT, establishing a cost magnitude range for LRT is more certain. The service provided by LRT, especially since it is within an existing system is well understood, while the range of service that can be provided by BRT is quite broad. Defining the type and amount of service within that range is necessary to produce meaningful costs. Having reliable costs for LRT but not BRT makes reliable comparisons difficult. Therefore, costs for both modes should be considered preliminary and only for the purposes of magnitudes for comparison, not actual budgets for any alternative. Cost magnitudes were developed for some alignment options, again, as representative information to help decide among broad distinctions in alternatives. More refined decisions in the future will be based on more detailed information to be develop in the next phase of the study based on the Steering Committee's direction. The 2035 Financially Constrained Regional Transportation Plan the roadway network;

21 Introduction Steering Committee Draft Revised June 4, 2013

22 Steering Committee Draft Revised June 4,2013 This page intentionally left blank

23 Steering Committee Draft Revised June 4, 2013 Description of Alternatives Modeled: LRT to Tigard The Light Rail alternative (figure 1) was evaluated with the following initial assumptions: Exclusive transit right of way A representative assumption of a combination of converting lanes for approximately 40 percent of the alignment and adding lanes for the remaining 60 percent An alignment on Naito south of downtown Portland Alignment on Barbur that would require a walk less than 1/3 mile to the edge of the PCC campus. Alignment options include: An alignment on Barbur or a tunnel under Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) south of downtown Portland Direct access to Portland Community College (PCC) Extension to Tualatin with alignment options on SW Hall or SW nnd. Each of these options could have sub-options with detailed routing to be determined in future stages. Figure 1. LRT to Tigard local Transit HCT Alternative HCTOptlon 2010mod"l<!<l transit lines 20:35 conceptual local transit ad(lotions WES hne

24 Steering Committee Draft Revised June 4, 2013 Description of Alternatives Modeled: BRT to Tigard The BRT to Tigard alignment (figure 2) was evaluated with the following initial assumptions: Exclusive transit right of way An added transitway for the entire length that assumed no impact on motor vehicle travel lanes Alignment options include: An alignment on Barbur south of downtown Portland Alignment on Barbur that would require a walk less than 1/3 mile to the edge of the pee campus. An alignment on Naito south of downtown Portland Access to pee with a new connection that skirts the edge of the pee campus. Figure 2. local Transit HCT Altematl~ HCTOpt on 2010 modeled!r nslt hn~ 2035 conceptlhlllocal trans't additions WES hne

25 Steering Committee Draft Revised June Description of Alternatives Modeled: BRT to Tualatin The BRT to Tualatin alignment (figure 3) was evaluated assuming a mix of lane configurations. The numbered list below corresponds to the seg ments shown in figure 4 and describes the initial assumptions made in each segment: 1. Mixed traffic southbound; convert lane to business access and transit (BAT) lanes northbound. BAT lanes allow motor vehicles to make right turns to businesses and intersecting streets, but not travel continuously in that lane. Figure 4. BRT to Tualatin segments 2. BAT lanes southbound; mixed traffic northbound 3. Access to pee with a new connection that skirts the edge of the pee campus. Figure 3. BRT to Tualatin 4. Exclusive transit lanes on Hall Blvd. southbound; mixed traffic northbound 5. Exclusive right of way both directions 6. Mixed traffic Alignment options include: An alignment on Barbur south of downtown Portland Alignment on Barbur that would require a walk less than 1/3 mile to the edge of the pee campus HCT Alternat, HCTOption Local Transit 2010 modeled transit Iin~ - ~r~~i~oil~dft~~ loal WES line Alignment on 72nd between Tigard and Tualatin.

26 Steering Committee Draft Revised June 4, 2013 Description of Alternatives Modeled: BRT to Sherwood BRT to Sherwood (figure 5) was evaluated with the following initial assumptions: Service primarily in mixed traffic Targeted queue bypass lanes An alignment on Barbur south of downtown Portland Access to pee with a new connection that skirts the edge of the pee campus Alignment on Tualatin-Sherwood Road between Tualatin and Sherwood. Alignment options include: An alignment on Naito south of downtown Portland Alignment on Barbur that would require a walk less than 1/3 mile to the edge of the pee campus Alignment on Hall Blvd. between Tigard and Tualatin Alignment on Tualatin and Hwy 99 between Tualatin and Sherwood Alignment on Herman Road and 124th between Tualatin and Sherwood. Figure 5. LCKaI Transit HCT Altemative HCTOpt,on 2010mode~d transit lin~ ~~~i~"..ddft:~local WF.Sline

27 Steering Committee Draft Revised June 4,2013 Description of Alternatives Modeled: BRT Hub & Spoke Figure 6. BRT Hub & spoke segments The BRT Hub & Spoke alternative (figure 7) was evaluated with a representative assumption of a combination of lane configurations. BRT would travel between Portland and Tigard. Local buses using the spoke segments would also use the mainline alignment and benefit from those BRT improvements. The numbered list below corresponds to the segments shown in figure Mixed traffic 2. BAT lanes southbound; mixed traffic northbound 3. Mixed traffic, with exclusive transitway on new structure over 1-5 between Crossroads area and the Tigard Triangle There is an alignment option on Barbur south of downtown Portland. HCT Alternall HCTOpllon 2010 modele transit lines 2035 (on<:eptualloal transit a<khtlons WESI ne

28 Steering Committee Draft Revised June 4, 2013 Mode: Comparison of Light Rail and Bus Rapid Transit Figure 8. LRT to Tiga rd Figure 9.

29 Steering Committee Draft Revised June 4, 2013 Mode: Comparison of Light Rail and Bus Rapid Transit The two modes under consideration are light rail transit (LRT) and bus rapid transit (BRT), with BRT having a range of options in terms of exclusivity of transit lanes and intersection treatments. Of the BRT alternatives, the BRT to Tigard is the most comparable to the LRT alternative analyzed, as both would terminate in Tigard. See figures 8 and 9. Ridership Project ridership counts the number of riders on the HCT line in the Southwest Corridor in 2035 on an average weekday. In the No- Build, this measure includes riders on bus lines 12 and 94 between Portland and Tigard, in the two HCT alternatives it includes riders on the HCT lines only. New transit ridership measures the change in average weekday system transit ridership compared to the No-Build resulting from implementation of the project. LRT to Tigard would have 22,500 average weekday project riders, and the BRT to Tigard would have 20,100 riders, compared to 12,400 for the No-Build (figure 10). LRT to Tigard would attract 7,640 new riders to transit while BRT to Tigard would attract 4,300 new riders to transit on an average weekday. LRT to Tigard and BRT to Tigard were modeled with different routing assumed in the PCC area, which accounts for some variances in ridership. The BRT was routed to serve the PCC campus directly via Capitol Highway and SW 49th Avenue, while LRT was routed on Barbur Boulevard below the campus. The LRT alignment includes a station within less than a 1/3 mile walk from the edge of the campus. Routing via Capitol Highway/SW 49th Avenue would result in nearly 2,400 more riders than routing on Barbur, with 6,370 average weekday riders using the two BRT stations compared to 4,010 daily riders at the single LRT station on Barbur. However, most of the additional riders for BRT used the line 44 in the No-Build alternative, which served PCC (in the No-Build and in the LRT alternative) but was rerouted in the BRT alternative to avoid duplicating BRT service. With different assumptions in HCT or local service routing, the BRT and LRT ridership would be similar in this section. Figure 10 Project Ridership and New Transit Ridership (2035) 25,000 22,500 20, Project Riders 10,000 New Riders 5,000 o No-Build BRT-Tigard

30 Steering Committee Draft Revised June 4,2013 Mode: Comparison of Light Rail and Bus Rapid Transit Service levels All HCT alternatives were modeled for the peak demand hours assuming 7.5 minute headways (8 vehicles per hour). For BRT to Tigard, however, those service frequencies would not be sufficient to accommodate the peak load point (the highest ridership location during the peak hour in the peak direction). Though peak loads under the LRT alternative would be higher than those for the BRT alternative, LRT would be able to accommodate the demand because of the greater passenger carrying capacity of LRT vehicles (266 for LRT compared to 87 for BRT). See figure II. In order to accommodate the peak demand, service frequencies for BRT to Tigard would need to increase to 13 vehicles per hour (4.6 minute headways) assuming the BRT were served with 60 foot articulated vehicles. See figure 12. Figure 11. Change in Annual Corridor Operating Costs Annual corridor operating costs are based on the vehicle hours traveled for all transit service in the corridor. Vehicle hours depend on the length of each transit route and the number of vehicles in operation. Costs for the trunk corridor routes (the 12 and 94 in the No-Build, HCT lines in the build alternatives) are based on having buses in operation to accommodate the peak demand for each line. The annual operating costs of the LRT alternative would be $4.9M more than the No Build, and the annual operating costs of the BRT would be $6.3M more than the No-Build in 2035 (figure 13). Annual operating costs for LRT would be lower than those for BRT because although a single LRT vehicle costs more per hour to operate than a single BRT vehicle, fewer vehicles and operators would be required to accommodate the peak demand. Hourly Carrying Capacity and Peak Demand with Eight Vehicles/Hour 2500., Capacity 1000 Peak Demand 500 o LRT-Tigard BRT-Tigard Also, since LRT would interline with existing LRT service it would, in effect, serve as an extension of an existing line. Therefore, there would be no additional operating costs on the downtown Portland transit mall section of the route. However, since BRT would be a new mode and could not interline with other service, additional operating costs would accrue for BRT on the transit mall. Figure 12. Hourly Service Frequencies in the Peak Period 15 -r , Additional Trips Required 5.Assumed Trips o LRT Tigard BRT~Tigard

31 Steering Committee Draft Revised June 4,2013 Mode: Comparison of Light Rail and Bus Rapid Transit Figure Annual Operating Costs over No-Build (2035) ~ }~_ $4.9M Dollars ~ lrt-tigard SRT-Tigard Figure 14. $1.80 $1.60 $1.40 $1.20 Cost Per Boarding (2035) Operating Efficiency Operating efficiency is measured by cost per boarding of each corridor trunk line (the 12 and 94 in the No-Build, HCT lines in the build alternatives), calculated by dividing the annual operating costs of each HCT line by its annual boardings. These values, expressed as dollars per boarding, are useful in comparing the modeled alternatives, but are not directly comparable with TriMet's reported cost per boarding for current bus routes as TriMet's service hours are calculated differently compared to the travel demand model's vehicle hours. $ Dollars $0.80 $0.60 $0.40 No-Build lrt-tlgard SRT-Tlgard Cost per boarding for both LRT and BRT to Tigard would be less than cost per boarding for the local trunk lines in the No-Build, due to the increases in ridership (figure 14).

32 Steering Committee Draft Revised June 4,2013 Mode: Comparison of Light Rail and Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Service Reallocation The topography in the northern section of the Southwest Corridor causes a funneling effect on bus service, with several corridor bus lines using Barbur Boulevard north of Capitol Highway (north) to enter or leave downtown Portland (figure 15). Today, these include lines 1, 12, 38,44, 45,54,92, and 94, with up to 26 buses per hour in each direction in peak periods. In 2035, with service for trunk lines (the 12 and 94) adjusted to accommodate projected demand, the number of buses per hour would increase to at least 35 buses per hour in the No-Build. Under the LRT alternative there would be an opportunity to reduce the number of buses in the northern part of the corridor and to redistribute service hours to transit to the southern part of the corridor. Because there would be capacity remaining on LRT after serving the projected peak demand, some local transit lines that would travel on Barbur could be interlined or shortened, with travelers destined to or from downtown Portland transferring to or from LRT. As a result, LRT operations would be more efficient as daily ridership would increase without additional operating cost, and bus service hours saved from interlining or shortening routes could be reallocated elsewhere in the corridor. Reallocation would provide new or enhanced connections between other communities in the corridor and surrounding areas in addition to connections to the LRT. This opportunity would not exist under the BRT alternatives, as BRT capacity would not accommodate the projected demand without additional BRT service. Transit riders transferring to BRT from interlined or shortened local routes would require additional BRT service and result in higher BRT operating costs. Figure 15. Local service using Barbur

33 Steering Committee Draft Revised June 4,2013 Mode: Comparison of Light Rail and Bus Rapid Transit Capital Cost Magnitudes Subject to available funding, in the next phase somewhat more detailed design (conceptual design) will be performed that will allow the development of more traditional cost estimates. At this stage, we have a general sense of the cost magnitude of HCT. The following cost magnitude estimates are in 2022 dollars. The highest cost magnitude combination of alternatives and options is LRT to Tualatin with a tunnel to OHSU $3.2 billion. LRT to Tualatin without a tunnel is estimated to cost $2.6 billion; LRT to Tigard without a tunnel is estimated at $1.8 billion. The cost magnitude of BRT would vary with better performance coming with increasing investment in capital costs. The best performing BRT is expected to cost approximately 50 to 80 percent of the cost of similar LRT; the lowest performing would be less than 40 percent; and mid-level would be 40 to 50 percent. In general, an investment in capital costs reduces operating costs. In addition, federal matching funds are typically available on a competitive basis for capital costs, but are not available to assist with ongoing operations. Additional information on this trade-off will developed during the next phases of the project.

34 Steering Committee Draft Revised June 4,2013 Destination: Comparison of Tigard, Tualatin and Sherwood Ridership Compared to BRT terminating in Tigard, an Fi ure 16. extension to Tualatin would add 6,800 project riders and 570 new transit riders (figure 16). An extension to Sherwood would add another 2,000 project riders and 910 new 30,000 riders. The extension to Sherwood assumes 20,000 Tualatin-Sherwood Road would be widened; 15,000 the No-Build does not. This expansion would 10,000 mean improved transit service for the BRT relative to the No-Build bus and results in a relatively higher number of new riders in this section compared to the number of new riders between Tigard and Tualatin. $ $2...OL. $2.00 $1.80 $1.60 $1.40 $1.20 $1.00 $0.80 $0.60 $0.40 Project Ridership and New Transit Ridership (2035) 35,000 -r :-::-:-:-:- 25, ;500 - Project Riders 5,000.New Riders o Figure 17. Change in Annual Corridor Operating Annual Operating Costs over Costs r No-Build (2035) Compared to BRT terminating in Tigard, an extension to Tualatin would cost an additional $1.2 million annually to operate, and an extension to Sherwood would cost an additional $2.6 million (figure 17). The higher relative cost of extending to Sherwood, compared to extending to Tualatin, is partially due to the routing on SW nnd Avenue, == Dollars J which results in slower travel times (and longer run times) than BRT to Tualatin's routing on Hall Boulevard. Another factor lrt-tigard BRT-Tlgard BRT-Tualatin BRT-Sherwood contributing to the higher corridor operating to other segments where more frequent bus cost resulting from extending BRT service to service would be replaced. Sherwood is that BRT service between Sherwood Operating Efficiency and Tualatin would be higher frequency than the assumed No-Build bus service it would replace Compared to BRT to Tigard, cost per boarding resulting in lower operating cost savings compared would increase by $0.22 with an extension to Tualatin, and by an additional $0.25 with an Figure 18. extension to Sherwood (figure 18). As additional ridership would decline with longer routing, Cost Per Boarding (2035) and as operating costs would increase, operating efficiency would decrease Dollars

35 Destination: Hub and Spoke Steering Committee Draft Revised June 4,2013 Spokes In the BRT Hub and Spoke alternative, spokes are local service bus routes that would utilize the BRT capital improvements on Barbur Boulevard to expedite travel between downtown Portland and the point where the local route would access the BRT investments. The three spokes assumed for analysis were: A southern spoke from Sherwood, traveling on Highway 99W and accessing the BRT transitway north of Tigard An eastern spoke from Lake Oswego, serving PCC-Sylvania and accessing the BRT transitway at Crossroads A western spoke from Murray!Scholls, serving Washington Square entering the BRT transitway via SW Multnomah Boulevard. Fi ure Project Ridership and New Transit Ridership (2035) , n-m-,,--- Ridership Spokes utilizing the BRT transitway would result in an increase of 3,000 daily project riders, measured on the BRT transitway between Portland and Tigard, and an increase of 2,970 new system transit riders. Of the 23,100 project riders, 12,900 (56%) would use the three spokes, and 10,200 (44%) would use the BRT (figure 19). Change in Annual Corridor Operating Costs Compared to BRT to Tigard without spokes using BRT transitway, BRT with spokes would cost an additional $13.2M annually to operate, for a total of $19.5M over the No-Build. Operating Efficiency Compared to BRT to Tigard without spokes using the BRT transitway, the cost per boarding for the BRT and spokes on the transitway would increase by $0.52 (figure 20). While the additional service provided by the spokes on the transitway would attract increased ridership, the additional cost of operating 3 additional lines on Barbur (and duplicating service) would result in less efficient operations. 15,000 Project Riders 10,000.NewRlders o BRT-Tlgard Hub and Spoke' Cost Per Boarding (2035) $2.00 $1.80 $1.60 $1.40 $ Dollars $1.00 BRT Design Limitations Routing local buses onto the BRT capital improvement would complicate centerrunning BRT lanes and create the need to either buy many more special buses with doors on both sides to operate on those spokes, which would increase capital costs, or build only right-side platforms on the transitway, which would increase costs and impacts. BRT improvements would most likely be limited to BAT lanes, signal priority! preemption, and curbside queue bypass lanes at intersections. As a result, a high-level BRT with the highest ridership and land use and economic benefits would be difficult to attain. $0.80 $0.60 $0.40 No-llulld BRT-Tlgard Hub and Spoke

36 Steering Committee Draft Revised June 4, 2013 Southwest Service Enhancement Plan Southwest Service Enhancement Plan TriMet is initiating its Southwest Service Enhancement Plan to identify future priorities for local service throughout the corridor. Initial concepts were developed in part through information learned during the SW Corridor Plan process, and are being tested in SW Corridor Plan modeling efforts. These improvements are included in modeling for the No-Build and all Build alternatives. Preliminary concepts include new connections between the corridor and the other locations in Washington County, including between high employment areas in Hillsboro and both Sherwood and Tualatin, and new cross-corridor local service, such as on Tualatin-Sherwood Road, Gaardel McDonald Streets, Durham Road, and BonitaRdI Kruse Way. Through the Southwest Corridor Plan, TriMet will continue to work with corridor jurisdictions to develop the Southwest Service Enhancement Plan. As HCT alternatives become more defined, local transit connections to HCT and capital improvements necessary to enhance key transit connections throughout the corridor will be incorporated.

37 Southwest Service Enhancement Plan Steering Committee Draft Revised June 4, 2013 Figure 21. Modeled Transit Network Conceptual Local Service 8 local Transit 2010 modeled transit lines 2035 conceptual local transit additions WES line

38 Environmental Evaluation Steering Committee Draft Revised June 4, 2013 This evaluation is intended to provide a broad, high-level, planning analysis to identify the key environmental issues to be aware of in the corridor. This level of analysis differs from what would typically be conducted for specific alignments or transportation projects. For this evaluation, locations where the transit alternatives that were developed for anaysis intersect with key natural resources or land from publicly owned parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and public or private historic sites that could trigger regulations within the corridor planning area were identified. Identifying these locations flags potential environmental issues that should be considered as the design alternatives are developed in subsequent phases, including the environmental impact statement and permitting phases. This analysis is undertaken in order to begin to develop an understanding environmental issues and potential environmental impacts, as well as opportunities. Identifying environmental resources at this stage flags areas for potential opportunities to improve natural resources, as well as areas of focus for alignments that continue for further study. Information developed during this phase will continue to be refined and developed and shared with the public and with regulatory agencies during the upcoming phases in compliance with local, state, and federal requirements, including the National Environmental Policy Act, the u.s. Department of Transportation. Methodology A GIS analysis identifies places where the of the HCT alignments might impact streams and land identified in the 2013 the Regional Conservation Strategy (RCS) in the corridor. The RCS is a science-based biodiversity guide for this region that incorporates high-resolution mapping, and scientific modeling and information from practitioners who have expert knowledge of the region to identify "High Value Habitat" lands and "High Value Riparian" land. Figures 21 though 25 show the five HCT alignments overlaid on the RCS. Wildlife corridors were evaluated by visually studying GIS data showing surrounding vegetation, natural resources and land uses where potential habitat corridors have been identified. The rating is qualitative based on best professional judgment and has not been field verified. The rating is relative, ranging from "very likely" to "likely" to "possible" to "unlikely" to have impacts. Those locations assigned a rating of "very likely", "likely" and "possible" should be closely followed through the planning process in order to identify both the potential impacts of development to key species as well as any opportunities present that could improve connections through design that considers and incorporates the needs of these species. For example, if a culvert is being added or replaced, better design could not only address the needs for fish passage but also associated terrestrial or other wildlife that are likely to be using the area. Potential natural resource impacts Areas with potential impacts to consider more closely have been identified. The alignment options with the greatest differences in routes might have different impacts on natural resources. Overlaying these alternatives on the 2013 the Regional Conservation Strategy land cover data flagged a few areas where close attention to environmental impacts should be considered as the alignment is refined. Key areas for special attention in refining transit alignments include: In Central Portland, two transit alignment options were studied: one using SW Naito Parkway, and one using SW Barbur Blvd. The SW Barbur Blvd. may have more potential impacts on habitat areas - likely due to topography and mature tree canopy in that area. In the Hillsdale area, all the transit design options included using 99W. The GIS based analysis shows there is potential for impacts on habitat and water resources including Tryon Creek headwaters.

39 Environmental Evaluation Steering Committee Draft Revised June 4,2013 The alignments that serve PCC directly, which at a minimum appear to intersect Red Rock Creek, a tributary of Fanno Creek, show potentially fewer natural resource impacts than the alignment on Barbur Blvd. South of Tigard, an alignment that uses SW nnd appears to have significantly fewer potential impacts than the Hall Boulevard option alignment. Both design options serving the southern end of the corridor (BRT Tualatin and BRT Sherwood) indicate potential impacts to water resources (floodplain and riparian areas) connected to the Tualatin River and to Hedges Creek. Potential 4 (1) resources The Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) 4(f) regulations govern the use of land from publicly owned parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and public or private historic sites for Federal transportation projects. This analyis was undertaken in order to be aware of potential issues in the corridor. The GIS analysis of potentiai4(f) impacts of the HCT alternatives resulted in a list of approximately 40 parks within 150' of the transit alignments with potentiai4(f) considerations. The analysis also included a preliminary look at publicly owned and accessible trails that are outside of parks. The analysis resulted in a list of approximately 50 trails with potentiai4(f) considerations.

40 Steering Committee Draft Revised June 4, 2013 Figure 22. LRT to Tigard I I o Miles RCS High Value Lands by 1.6 acre polygrids, near buffered options RCS High Value Riparian Lands ORCS High Value Riparian Lands top 20% RCS High Value Lands RCS High Value Lands top 20%

41 Steering Committee Draft Revised June 4,2013 Figure 23. RCS High Value Lands by 1.6 acre polygrids, near buffered options RCS High Value Riparian Lands D RCS High Value Riparian Lands top 20% RCS High Value Lands I I o Miles RCS High Value Lands top 20%

42 Steering Committee Draft Revised June 4, 2013 Figure 24. BRT to Tualatin RCS High Value Lands by 1.6 acre polygrids, near buffered options RCS High Value Riparian Lands D RCS High Value Riparian Lands top 20% RCS High Value Lands I I o Miles RCS High Value Lands top 20%

43 Steering Committee Draft Revised June 4,2013 BRT to Sherwood RCS High Value Lands by 1.6 acre polygrids, near buffered options RCS High Value Riparian Lands ORCS High Value Riparian Lands top 20% RCS High Value Lands I I o Miles RCS High Value Lands top 20%

44 Steering Committee Draft Revised June 4,2013 Hub and Spoke RCS High Value Lands by 1.6 acre polygrids, near buffered options RCS High Value Riparian Lands ORCS High Value Riparian Lands top 20% I I o Miles RCS High Value Lands RCS High Value Lands top 20%

45 Exhibit NE (:irand.ave wwworegonmetro.gov Portland, OR ,Metro I Memo Date: June 3, 2013 To: SW Corridor Plan Steering Committee From: Juan Carlos Ocana-Chiu, Sr. Public Affairs Specialist Subject: May 2013 SW Corridor Plan Public Involvement Activities Summary Introduction: In May, 2013 the SW Corridor Project staff conducted three activities with the goal of collecting input from the community regarding the most salient elements of the project. These activities were: 1. The SW Corridor Economic Summit: local business, education, and government stakeholders were invited to participate in this event to provide input on the project from an economic vitality perspective. The summit took place at the Tigard Library on Tuesday, May 21, from 7:30 to 9:00 a.m. Twenty-four (24) participants attended this event (not counting project and partner organizations' staft). 2. The SW Corridor Community Planning Forum: all stakeholders were invited to attend the event, receive a presentation by project staff on the progress made to this date, interact with.the project and local jurisdictions staff, and give input. The forum took place at the Recent Public Involvement Activities:./ May 21 - Economic summit./ May 23 - Community planning forum./ May 23 to June 26 - Online survey on high capacity transit options Upcoming Public Involvement Activities: >- June 10 to 26 - Online survey on the draft recommendation >- June 10 to 26 Environmental justice outreach and discussion groups >- June 26 - Community planning forum Tualatin Library on Thursday, May 23, from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. Twenty-six (26) participants attended this event, including a citizen from each of the eight cities in the Southwest Corridor (not counting project and partner organizations' staft). 3. An online survey that presents the project information shared at the Community Planning Forum and asks participants to answer questions about the project's high-capacity transit (HCT) potential destinations, attributes of the bus rapid transit (BRT) options, outcomes of the overall SW Corridor project, and any additional comments. As of May 30, the survey had received 53 unduplicated responses. 1 Take the SW Corridor Plan electronic survey, open until June 26, at: htlps://

46 Subject: May 2013 SW Corridor Plan Public Involvement Activities Summary From: Juan Carlos Ocana-Chiu, Sr. Public Affairs Specialist Date: June 3, 2013 The input collected through these activities has been organized for the purposes of this report in three main areas: a) Destination of the HCT options; b) Type of BRT; and c) Overall outcomes for the SW Corridor project. Destination ofthe HCT options: The majority of people who provided input indicated that they prefer to have HCT that extends from downtown Portland, through Tigard, to Tualatin. The majority also indicated that they would like to see local transit access improvements in addition to any HCT project, to provide better service to the areas that end up not being served directly by HCT. One important area that will need local transit improvements is Sherwood, which was not identified by the public as the preferred destination option. Other input regarding the alignment and destination was: support for HCT that serves OHSU, either through a light rail tunnel or through an HCT alignment that serves South Waterfront be mindful that people will come to the employment areas not just using the HCT alignment, but also from other points further east and southwest, so the system should be designed to help those users as well preserving freight mobility is also vital for the SW Corridor it is important to consider how HCT will serve both more and less affluent users, without prioritizing one group over the others. Type of BRT: The majority of the people who provided input through these activities expressed strong support for building a BRT option that runs mostly or entirely on an exclusive transitway, so it is eligible for New Starts Program federal funding. Other input regarding the type of BRT was: BRT is a more flexible option that could change alignments to serve different areas, in the event of significant demographic change, much more easily than light rail contact other jurisdictions, both in the outside the US, that have built BRT systems in order to learn from their experiences adjust BRT and other bus service schedules so buses can serve workers in the Corridor's employment areas, who start their shifts early in the morning, at times when currently there is no transit service available. Overall outcomes for the SW Corridor Project: The survey respondents were asked to consider seven overall outcomes for the project, and to choose three that were the most important to them. The outcomes presented are: 2 Take the SW Corridor Plan electronic survey, open until June 26, at: https: Ilwww.surveymonkey.com/sISWCPtransitoptions

47 Subject: May 2013 SW Corridor Plan Public Involvement Activities Summary From: Juan Carlos Ocana-Chiu, Sr. Public Affairs Specialist Date: June 3, 2013 Access and mobility (more and better sidewalks and bikeways, reduced time in traffic or at lights) Better transit (quicker trips, more local service and easier walk to a MAX or bus rapid transit station) Prosperity (more jobs, development and housing) Healthy communities (Access to parks, trails and natural areas, more walking and biking opportunities) Equity (fair distribution of benefits and burdens) Natural environment (protect and enhance streams, habitat and trees), and Feasibility (cost, funding potential and support). The respondents ranked the outcomes in the following, descending order (from most voted to least voted]: 1. Better transit 2. Access and mobility 3. Feasibility 4. Healthy communities S. Prosperity 6. Natural environment, and 7. Equity Similar input was gathered at the Economic Summit and the Community Planning Forum. Other input regarding outcomes and trade-offs was: design an HCT system that serves employment centers, but also helps residents get to the jobs in those centers design an HCT system that serves the main street areas and the less dense, bedroom communities increase both transit and road capacity to accommodate the projected population and employment growth in the SW Corridor continue to study the light rail transit option, which has significantly more capacity than the BRT options focus on the existing land use vision when making decisions about the project avoid increasing congestion at the "choke points" preserve and continue providing for ample parking for cars consider the impact of the project on the future generations this region needs to plan for phases, because we tend to go too big, but if that doesn't work out we don't do anything. 3 Take the SW Corridor Plan electronic survey, open until June 26, at: https: I Iwww.surveymonkey.com/s ISWCPtransitoptions

48 Subject: May 2013 SW Corridor Plan Public Involvement Activities Summary From: Juan Carlos Ocafia-Chiu, Sr. Public Affairs Specialist Date: June 3, 2013 Outstanding questions: The participants in the public involvement activities also expressed a number of questions that are still outstanding. The questions collected are: What is the expected life span of the HCT systems under consideration? Is there efficiency in having a singular transit option? Why is it so much more expensive to operate HCT to Sherwood than it is to Tualatin? The distance from Tigard to Tualatin is roughly the same as from Tualatin to Sherwood, but the operating expenses increase disproportionately in relation to the distance. Would the BRT buses be diesel or electric? What is the break even (amortization) point for both LRT and BRT investments? Many of the answers these questions will be part of a Refinement Phase for the Southwest Corridor. Conclusion: The input collected through the three public involvement activities during May, 2013 points out that: 1. There is strong support for having an HCT system that serves Tigard and has its final destination in Tualatin; 2. Regarding the BRT options, there is strong support for having a system that runs mostly on an exclusive transitway; 3. Better transit, Access and mobility, and Feasibility are the top three outcomes that should be considered when making a decision on the options to carry to the Refinement Phase of the SW Corridor project. Public involvement activities will continue through the July 2013 Steering Committee decision point, and beyond. The online survey will remain open until the end ofjune. On June 26, project staffwill hold another Community Planning Forum in Tigard, in order to present updated information and continue gathering and summarizing public input. Metro staff will also engage organizations that work with groups that could be disproportionally affected by the SW Corridor Project decisions in order to gather their input and summarize it into the Environmental Justice Report that will be presented to the Steering Committee prior to the July, 2013 decision. Appendices: A. Summary of public input collected during the SW Corridor Economic Forum, on May 21, 2013; and B. Summary of public input collected through the online survey, as of May 31, Take the SW Corridor Plan electronic survey, open until June 26, at: https: I Iwww.surveymonkey.com/s ISWCPtransitoptions

49 Appendix A: Summary of Public Input Collected at the SW Corridor Economic Summit On May 21, 2013, at the Tigard Library Summary of Input Collected The invited guests to the SW Corridor Economic Summit engaged in a small group discussion during part of the summit. Their input has been organized into the following categories: High-capacity transit (HCT) options: General input: Investments that improve freight mobility: o Losing a lane would be a big concern, especially in 2035 and looking to what the freight demand will be at that time; o Some needs of freight are the same as emergency vehicles (speed and accessibility). Do not lose capacity for roadways. Signal priority should be given to high-capacity transit (HCT) where there are stops. Ridership: o It is important to have more buses during peak ridership; o Create a balance: it is still important to have buses available during off peak times, but they do not need to come every five minutes. Design a fully exclusive transitway first, then scale it back as needed, with money considerations. But don't start by planning small because it will most likely get scaled back even more. Vision and phasing: if you do not plan for it, it will never get done. But this region needs to plan for phases because we tend to go too big. But if that does not work out, then we do not do anything. TriMet has to radically change how it manages finances. Each district has to pay for its own services and get the service that it is paying for. Must be able to walk to stops safely. Operating costs must be broken down between fixed/flexible costs. Fixed and variable costs are not broken down fairly in the model's operating costs: o Are light rail train (LRT) and bus rapid transit (BRT) both adjustable, or is LRT more fixed? Can we determine that? LRT versus BRT is an efficiency issue; has this been factored into the costs? Serving residential areas versus business areas: o We need to determine how to effectively serve retail areas and main streets; o How can the plan serve less dense, bedroom communities?; o It is important to connect HCT to smaller areas (Le. Hillsdale, Multnomah Village); o Ensure there is pedestrian and bike access to allow people to utilize bus/hct service. We need reliable, frequent service. 1 Take the SW Corridor Plan electronic survey, open until June 36, at:

50 How long is the expected life span? Is there efficiency in having a singular transit option? Thinking about investments in HCT in the long-term, how do we create a livable future for our children and grandchildren? It is important to preserve mobility as a transportation corridor. There is agreement among participants that it is better to spend money up front to create lower operating costs. There is value to communities that are not directly on the HCT alignment if there are excellent, frequent transit connections to the HCT Looking at the projected operating costs for HTC to different destinations, these questions came up: o o o Why is it so much more expensive to operate HCT to Sherwood than it is to Tualatin? The distance from Tigard to Tualatin is roughly the same as from Tualatin to Sherwood, but the operating expenses increase disproportionately in relation to the distance. Does the projected ridership number to Sherwood take into account the additional number of riders coming to Sherwood from outside the region, who could take HCT to jobs in Tualatin and beyond? Are the assumptions in the model reliable? The analysis is different if the goal is to take riders to downtown Portland, as opposed to taking people from the region to the employment centers along the corridor. This is an equity issue. The system, as envisioned, seems like it would serve more "high-end" (affluent) riders than industrial workers. No support for HCT in mixed traffic. Support for dedicated-lane HCT, especially BRT. Dedicated-lane HCT is preferable, especially because this will allow it to qualify for Federal funding. Support for business access and transit (BAT) lanes for the HCT design. The amount of traffic going to downtown Portland is almost equal to the amount of traffic going south on the corridor. Many people come to work to points along the corridor from all over Portland. TriMet does not pay for all the capital investment costs, but it does pay for all the operating costs. All the other jurisdictions involved pay for a big percentage of the infrastructure investments. The current estimate for the percentage that local jurisdictions would pay for in the project is at 50%. Whatever mode is finally selected, it should be friendly to connect with other modes. Bus rapid transit (BRT) input: Bus feels more flexible. BRI's higher operating costs are less of a concern if there is better service (which can be shown through ridership). Would buses be diesel/electric? 2 Take the SW Corridor Plan electronic survey, open until June 36, at:

51 Keep a line of discussion open and build relationships with other jurisdictions that have used BRT to find out how they have been successful. Prefer to have BRT in mixed traffic use, having the bus get off of the highway when it stops. Light rail train (LRT) input: Why does LRT predict a higher ridership? LRT is preferable: "wise decisions aren't always popular, but LRT is a no brainer". It is Hard to make a bus anything more than a bus. LRT is more reliable than BRT. Trains are most efficient, reliable and comfortable for the majority of people. Buses are less comfortable or scarier for many people. Alignment options input: Alignment needs to serve OHSU, either by a tunnel to campus or a Naito alignment. People in Hillsdale are increasingly supportive of an LRT tunnel. Many people who work in Tualatin come from points in the east, west and south: Newberg-Dundee, West Linn-Lake Oswego-Wilsonville, and Woodburn. HTC to Sherwood would be more effective if it helped reduce traffic on the roads that lead to those points where workers are coming from. Extend HCT at least to Tualatin, and improve local transit connections to Sherwood. Hub and spokes input: TriMet Bus # 154, which goes from Oregon City to West Linn, could be extended west into Tualatin in order to easily create an east-west connection that is currently missing. Trade-offs input: What is the break-even (amortization) point for both LRT and BRT investments? BRT infrastructure seems much more flexible than LRT's in the event of a natural disaster, especially of an earthquake. Population and jobs could geographically shift, and BRT could respond much more easily to those shifts than LRT. The HCT project should be designed in order to qualify for Federal funding. The trade-off is that such a project creates sticker shock for a large segment of the population. 3 Take the SW Corridor Plan electronic survey, open until June 36, at:

52 Economic development: In 20 years there is going to be 90,000+ more people in the corridor, and we need the capacity (both road and transit) to handle this population and job growth. Sherwood: o o o There is much employment/industrial land in Sherwood; We need to plan for 20 years from now: commuters from Newberg and Wilsonville can be served with park-and-ride facilities and good HCT from Sherwood; The heaviest job growth in the next 20 years will be in the Tualatin/Sherwood area. HCT should target employment centers; but we will also need local transit service to get people from residential areas in the corridor to the employment areas. Tualatin has a lot of industrial employment, and the work shifts in those industries start earlier than when the first bus comes into town in the morning. New transit systems design and development should take into account the shifts. land use: Focus on Land use: what are the anchors that we want to serve 20 years from now? Tualatin also needs more housing options. There is strong opposition to development restrictions, especially parking restrictions, in the station areas ("Don't kid yourself about restricting parking in the suburbs," "Don't fuss with parking."): o "The theory that if transit is available the need for parking goes down doesn't work in the suburbs." We need to anticipate what the various types of tenants might require; o People cannot get financing with "normal" or traditional parking ratios. Do not do anything that worsens congestion at "choke points" on Barbur and 99W (Capitol Hwy. Interchange, Terwilliger curves). Do not just add buses into mixed traffic. Make sure to provide enough parking at Park & Rides 4 Take the SW Corridor Plan electronic survey, open until June 36, at:

53 Appendix B: Summary of Public Input Collected Through Online Survey As of May 31, 2013 SW Corridor Plan project staff created on online survey to collect public input on three main aspects of the project: A. Destination for the high-capacity transit (HCT) options under consideration; B. Attributes of potential a bus rapid transit (BRT) in the SW Corridor; and C. Overall outcomes that are important to the public. The online survey went live before the Community Planning Forum on May 23,2013. As of May 31 at 5:00 PM, the survey had received 53 responses. The online survey will continue to collect responses from the public until June 26, Metro staff are publicizing the survey through social media, newsfeeds, and partner organizations' communications. You can take the survey at: The following graphics summarize the respondents' input to the questions posed by the survey: [Question 1 asks respondents to enter their zip code.] 2. Where should high capacity transit go? Portlllnd to Tigard Portland through Tigard to Tuallltin Portland through Tigard and Tualatin to Sherwood o

54 3. What kind of bus rapid transit would be the best fit for the Southwest Corridor? Fully in the rolldwlly. constant interllction with tfllffic Mostly in the foi'ldvl!ly. frequent interl'lction with traffic Half in the rolldwlly. half in an exclusive transitway Mostly in an exclusive transitvlay and infrequent interaction traffic Fully in an exclusive transitway. no interaction with traffic o

55 3. What kind of bus rapid transit would be the best fit for the Southwest Corridor? Fully in the roadwoy. collstont interection with tlllffic Mostly in the r06dv1lly. frequent interaction with tlllffic HBlf in the robdwby. hblfin lin exclusive trllnsitwll}' Mostly in Bn exclusive trllnsil\'iliy lind infrequent interection tlllffic Fully in lin exclusive trllnsil\'iliy. no intelllction with tlllffic o

56 4. The purpose of investments is to create better outcomes for communities in the Southwest Corridor. Are some outcomes more important than others? (choose 3) Access and mobility (more and better sidewalks and bikewllys. reduced... Better tmnsit (quicker trips. more local service lind easier walk to... Prosperity (more jobs. development lind housing) Healthy communities (Access to plirks. tmils and nlituralareas. more.. Equity (fair distribution of benefits and burdens) Natuflll environment (protect and enhance streams. habitat and trees) Fellsibility (cost. funding potential lind support) o D 50 3