Tigard is going to grow. So are Tualatin, Sherwood and every other community along the Highway 99W corridor southwest of Portland.
But will they need rapid transit to help them get around?
That was the crux of a community forum at the King City Clubhouse Wednesday, where leaders from Tigard and Tualatin and opponents of rapid transit squared off in front of more than 100 people.
High-capacity transit opponent Steve Schopp argued that the Southwest Corridor will ultimately lead to light rail in Tigard.
They were brought together Wednesday by two movements. The first is an ongoing study of transit between Tualatin and Portland – whether a rapid transit line should be built, whether it should have trains or buses, whether it should end in Tigard or Tualatin and what route it should follow. That in-depth federal environmental study is expected to take at least three more years.
The second is a proposal to check the brakes on rapid transit development in Tigard by making opposition to high-capacity transit a formal city policy. If Tigard's 25,000 voters approve the measure in March, city government would remain opposed to transit unless voters later overturn their opposition to transit.
That would be a mistake, said Craig Dirksen, a former Tigard mayor who now represents the city on the Metro Council. He talked about how he moved to Tigard in 1977 with a wife and child. His family later added two more children.
"What was one household with three people in 1977 is now three households with 10 people," Dirksen said. "That's just my family, and that story's been repeated 20,000 times."
He said rapid transit is the only viable option for dealing with traffic congestion in the city of 50,000 people. Highway 99W can't be widened without buying and demolishing dozens of businesses, Dirksen said.
"It would destroy the city," he said. "It would become a corridor that people in other communities drive through to get somewhere else."
Adding a transit line, Dirksen said, would allow people to preserve their suburban lifestyle while accommodating new growth in specific areas, like the Tigard Triangle area between Interstate 5 and highways 99W and 217.
"We provide places for the new growth to take places, and the jobs that need to go along with it and still allow those of us who want to live the suburban lifestyle we've chosen to do so," he said.
"If someone wants to use their car to drive everywhere, go ahead," he said. "But to make the corridor work, we need to provide people with other choices as well."
But for high-capacity transit opponent Steve Schopp, the talk about transit and livable communities is just a smoke screen for a plan to bring light rail to Tigard.
A woman takes notes during presentations at Wednesday night's community forum on transit.
"They're trying to alter the suburban landscape into a more urbanized form," he said. "Do you in fact want your city changed?"
Schopp also said it's unclear whether those kinds of developments lead to the livable communities Metro is advocating for.
"How do we know what (Dirksen) said is going to be effective? Are they going to create more walkers, bikers and transit users in a vibrant, livable community?"
Schopp pointed to a 2013 Metro audit saying that Metro hasn't figured out whether transit-oriented development improves transit ridership .
"Metro doesn't check and see what the effectiveness is," Schopp said.
Tigard Mayor John Cook said mass transit isn't a cure-all for congestion. But, he said, it will help mitigate it.
"In the future, as Sherwood grows, as Newberg grows, they're still going to drive up and down that road (99W)," Cook said. "It's going to reduce the increase in congestion. It won't solve congestion."
After presentations from other elected officials, the floor at the forum was opened to one-minute statements from members of the public. One, Tigard resident Michael Trigoboff, said he thinks transit will increase congestion.
"Look at Interstate Avenue and what happened when they put light rail on it. They took a thoroughfare and turned it into a little country lane," he said. "They're going to probably … turn Barbur Boulevard into the same kind of thing they turned Interstate Avenue into."
One of the proposed routes for transit is along Barbur Boulevard in Portland, although that decision is likely years away.
One speaker, Ron Morgan, focused on the opportunity that transit presents for economic growth, and said the arguments against transit in other areas don't apply in Tigard.
"We are Washington County. We are not Clackamas County. We are not Milwaukie. When we talk about The Round, that's the city of Beaverton's problem. That's not light rail, that's their development problem," Morgan said.
In Washington County, Morgan said, light rail supports big manufacturers like Intel and Nike.
"Those kind of companies demand multimodal transit for their workers," Morgan said. "They're going to say to Tigard, 'You don't want transit we're not going to put our business in your community.' If you want to be a suburb with no economic base, vote yes on this proposition."
Tigard resident Laurie Hein said the cost for transit wouldn't be worth the benefit.
"If you look at the statistics, you know about how many people get on those damn things, and it's damn few" she said.
About 30 percent of afternoon rush hour commuters in the I-84 and U.S. 26 corridors use MAX. In the morning, about 3,500 people per hour enter or leave downtown on MAX; by comparison, Highway 217 carries about 4,100 cars per hour at Tigard.
For some, though, the issue was less about transit use and more about the right to vote on it. Tim Esau said he thinks residents need to have a voice.
"We are each entitled to our own opinion and deserve to have a chance to express our views on it," he said.
But Dirksen said voters do have a chance to express their views on it – when they choose their elected representatives.
"They're your friends and neighbors that you elected to do this job," he said. "Don't add to the red tape of bureaucracy."
Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly identified the topic of a 2013 audit and the arguments of Steve Schopp. Both were addressing whether Metro has a way to effectively measure whether transit and associated development improve the livability of communities. This version has been corrected.