On Aug. 26, Metro chief Michael Jordan presented his ideas about a Community Investment Strategy to a crowd of more than 150 business leaders, public officials and other interested citizens that attended a forum sponsored by the Westside Economic Alliance and the Clackamas County Business Alliance.
Attendees were encouraged to submit questions in writing for Jordan to answer. As there were more questions submitted than Mr. Jordan had time to answer at the breakfast forum, he agreed to answer each of the written questions submitted and post the replies to those questions on Metro's website.
Below are the questions submitted to Metro (indicated in italics) and Jordan's responses:
Transportation-related questions
Washington County is unique in the state for funding transportation projects with a property-tax based Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program, while Clackamas County has favored a motor vehicle registration fee to help fund transportation investments here on the Westside. What are the regional funding options you will be recommending to reduce the [$27-41] billion funding gap for public infrastructure you tell us we can expect in the next 50 years?
First of all, I do not plan to unilaterally recommend any specific revenue solutions. I am recommending that our region's public and private sector leaders work collaboratively to develop a comprehensive investment strategy. This strategy should recommend methods to address our public structure needs broadly, including transportation, but also a wide range of other critical investments in our downtowns and main streets, our parks and natural areas, employment and industrial areas, and so on.
In regards to transportation, our region has developed a Regional Transportation Plan that includes a set of future investment strategies to close the finance gap. Those strategies, adopted by the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation and the Metro Council, envision a mix of investment sources such as vehicle registration fees, system development charges and tolling to address future capital needs, and local street utility maintenance fees (such as those adopted by the cities of Tigard and Lake Oswego) to pay for road maintenance. These investments would supplement the ongoing resources our region expects to receive from the state and federal transportation agencies.
The 2008 Regional Infrastructure Analysis provides lists of ideas to explore as we enter into this collaboration. Those lists include methods of financing public structures, but also ways to be more efficient with the resources we have, and how to innovate to provide services more inexpensively or to meet multiple objectives at once.
Next week [week of Aug. 30], TriMet has announced plans to cut public transit service and increase passenger fares, to make up for a $27 million funding gap in the agency's 2011 budget. But this will isolate some of the largest employment centers in the region, which fuel TriMet with the vital payroll taxes that keep their buses on time and the trains on track. Metro recently passed the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan that proposes significant expansion and investment in our region's public transit system with high capacity transit and fixed rail transit projects in particular. How do you reconcile the ambitious transit dreams in Metro's RTP, with the fiscal realities of TriMet's operating budget? In other words, how are we going to pay for the transportation needs over the next 20 years?
The 2035 RTP contains a package of multi-modal system of transportation investments, including expanding public transportation. From now until 2035, the RTP projects revenues will exist to expand transit service at a rate of 1 percent per year including capital expansion. The RTP highlights the potential tradeoffs of balancing existing transit service with desire to expand the public transportation system given the recent budget shortfalls. Current sources of transit investment are not enough to support the system expansions needed to serve its growing ridership. Traditional approaches to financing transportation projects are not only failing to maintain existing systems, they are inadequate to build new systems to accommodate growth and keep our economy moving. These issues warrant more discussion. New investment strategies, enhanced public and private collaboration and stronger public support must be developed to pay for major system investments. Meanwhile, the following interim steps are crucial:
- Avoid the higher costs of deferred maintenance by making maintenance of existing streets, roads and bridges a priority.
- Maximize operational efficiency of the current system, using new tools and management strategies.
- Prioritize less expensive, short-term improvements that yield the maximum benefit in relation to the outcomes that they achieve – safety, congestion relief, community development, freight reliability, etc.
Our regional transportation infrastructure is inadequate, the Columbia Crossing bridge being the prime example of our inability to plan and deal with growth. Will something really be done to work on road improvement and new major thoroughfares before gridlock occurs?
The transportation system plays a crucial role in sustaining the economic health of the region and the state of Oregon. Unmitigated congestion and delay will compromise the economy in the future. As a global trade gateway and domestic hub for commerce and tourism, our region must expand current efforts to address growing congestion, particularly in our mobility corridors. Metro maintains a Congestion Management Process for the Portland metropolitan region as required by federal law. The CMP includes a performance management system that informs needed capital investments, such as new or improved transit and road capacity as well as demand and system management strategies to make the most of our existing transportation investments. In addition to traditional congestion management strategies, our region has developed non-traditional approaches to manage growing congestion and improve freight reliability, including the use of intelligent transportation systems, building transit-oriented development near transit and implementation of programs to increase walking, biking and carpooling. While these strategies alone cannot solve congestion problems, they provide low-cost support to other strategies and road and transit investments.
How important is the construction of the Columbia River Crossing project to the region and how does it factor into the growth report recommendations?
The Locally Preferred Alternative, as approved in 2007, was assumed in the growth report assumptions in my recommendation. The CRC is a multi-modal transportation package that includes a new bridge with tolled freeway lanes and light rail transit and is a vital link in the region's transportation plan because:
- it will reduce peak hour auto, truck and transit travel times in the corridor
- Interstate 5 is our region's link to the rest of the West Coast, from Canada to Mexico; it provides access to the Albina intermodal rail yard, Portland Harbor marine terminals and is part of the access route to the Portland air terminal for air cargo
- five industries are particularly sensitive to road congestion: wood products distribution/wholesale trade, transportation equipment/steel, farm and food products and high tech; these products account for about 70 percent of tonnage crossing either Interstate 5 or Interstate 205 bridges
- it will provide needed engineering and construction jobs.
Metro is recommending that we infill, refill and reclaim underutilized areas inside the Urban Growth Boundary to provide homes, jobs and public services we will need to accommodate a million more residents in our region over the next 20 years. But how much of this growth is expected along existing roads and transit corridors owned and maintained by the state of Oregon. For their part, the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Oregon Transportation Commission insist on protecting the state's investments in highway interchanges and transportation investments. So how can we have it both ways – density and infill, along existing roads and transit corridors – without over-taxing the fragile transportation system we have?
Metro supports the OTC's objective of protecting the state's investment, and the RTP includes a number of traditional and non-traditional strategies aimed at improving the operation and efficiency of our existing transportation investments. Our region would like to work with the Commission to develop and implement a model for collaborative management of regional and district highways. This could include more strategic investments to upgrade facilities prior to, or in conjunction with, the transfer of ownership to local governments where appropriate. These are former highway routes, built before the regional throughway system evolved. They have since become urban arterial streets that connect communities and employment areas and, in many cases, function as regional transit routes or provide vital links within our cities.
Mass transit should be located where jobs are. Citizens want land/yards not density. Also, have you read this book - "Best Laid Plans" by Randal O'Toole? What changes will Metro make based on this? Going forward how will Metro address these items?
O'Toole calls for repealing federal, state and local planning laws and proposes reforms to help solve social and environmental problems without government regulation. This is not an approach supported by a majority of the region's voters.
Citizens love their cars. Why did the Westside bypass through Sherwood/Tualatin get dropped? When will it be implemented? Light rail hasn't worked because it doesn't go to places people need to go. Make transit available for commuters who don't have good light rail access.
In 1997, our region adopted the Western Bypass Study, which recommended a package of arterials, transit, highway and interchange investments in lieu of a new western bypass in southwest Washington County. Since 1997, local governments, TriMet and ODOT have been implementing recommended investments and completed additional planning for the Highway 217 corridor and the area between Interstate 5 and Oregon Route 99W in southern Washington County. These efforts identified additional local and regional multi-modal connections and system management strategies to serve current and future travel needs in this part of the region, including expanding transit.
In Europe, even large cities promote "walking streets" that bring together buyers and retailers in an enjoyable community focused zone. Has Metro considered supporting "walking streets" joined by public transit? Downtown Beaverton seems ideal!
The 2035 Regional Transportation Plan recognizes that pedestrian activity indicates vitality in residential, commercial and mixed-use areas. Pedestrian activity thrives where the physical facilities are well connected, safe and attractive—well lit, free of debris and in good repair—and where intersections have crosswalks or signal lights. The RTP calls for "complete streets" and emphasizes streetscape retrofits, street connectivity, transit, sidewalks, bicycle and trail connections in downtowns and along main streets to leverage mixed-use development and transit investments such as frequent bus, streetcar or high-capacity transit. These investments help revitalize downtowns and main streets and serve as an economic catalyst for businesses and jobs.
Land use-related questions
Metro is recommending that we infill, refill and reclaim underutilized areas inside the Urban Growth Boundary to provide homes, jobs and public services we will need to accommodate a million more residents in our region over the next 20 years. But how much of this growth is expected along existing roads and transit corridors owned and maintained by the state of Oregon. For their part, ODOT and the OTC insist on protecting the state's investments in highway interchanges and transportation investments. So how can we have it both ways – density and infill, along existing roads and transit corridors – without over-taxing the fragile transportation system we have?
Metro supports the OTC's objective of protecting the state's investment, and the RTP includes a number of traditional and non-traditional strategies aimed at improving the operation and efficiency of our existing transportation investments. Our region would like to work with the Commission to develop and implement a model for collaborative management of regional and district highways. This could include more strategic investments to upgrade facilities prior to, or in conjunction with, the transfer of ownership to local governments where appropriate. These are former highway routes, built before the regional throughway system evolved. They have since become urban arterial streets that connect communities and employment areas and, in many cases, function as regional transit routes or provide vital links within our cities.
It's good that Metro's decisions are "policy driven" rather than data driven. But how well will this policy-versus-data approach stand up to court review, given the state's data-based land use law requirements?
It is more accurate to characterize Metro's current decision-making on the capacity of the UGB and need for possible UGB expansion as both "policy-driven" and "fact-based." State law requires Metro's determination of the capacity of the UGB to be "fact-based." The Metro Council's UGB decisions must be grounded in the facts contained in the most recent Urban Growth Report (2009). But state law gives the Metro Council choices if it determines the UGB, based on the facts in the UGR, does not have sufficient capacity. The Council may expand the UGB to add capacity. It may take actions – such as investing in centers and corridors – to add capacity within the UGB. Or the Metro Council may do a combination of both. These are the results of multiple policy decisions. For example, should Metro increase residential capacity everywhere? Should it increase density in centers and corridors? Should it hold the UGB tight with no new capacity inside and thereby send growth to Vancouver? These and others are among the policy decisions the Metro Council might consider.
Approximately 70 percent of Sherwood's residents leave Sherwood for work. Based on the importance of a good jobs/housing balance, and the quote on page 13 of the report that Metro should make decisions that support employment areas, and then looking at the recommendation placing over 400 acres and 4,900 new dwelling units, but no employment acres in west Sherwood – tell us why these views and recommendations are not conflicting. Won't these recommendations just compound the failing transportation system and exhaust local government resources?
Metro is responsible for completing a regional assessment of growth capacity. The 2009 UGR did not indicate a regional need for additional employment capacity (just the special need for large industrial sites of 50 acres or more). If a UGB expansion is made for residential purposes, Metro staff encourages planning for mixed-use areas that provide retail and services for local residents.
UGB expansions are not the only way to provide employment capacity. Changes to zoning designations as well as encouraging more efficient use of land are additional steps that can be taken by cities. Currently, there is a sizable inventory of vacant office buildings in the region. For example, in the Tualatin/Wilsonville submarket, there was a 36.1 percent vacancy rate in the second quarter of 2010 (source: Grubb and Ellis).
Economic prosperity and "quality of life" questions
On page four of the summary report you gave us this morning [Aug. 26], your report indicated the number of "cost burdened households throughout the region could more than double from 95,500 in 2005 to a projected 195,000 households by 2035" spending more than 50 percent of our income on housing and transportation. That's not a very flattering look through your crystal ball, Michael, so help us get a clearer look, and tell us what our region must do to reduce these numbers and relieve the economic stress on residents of our region.
The obvious first response is to take actions now that will attract higher wage jobs in the future and counteract the housing and transportation cost increases with higher wages. This is not so easily accomplished, of course, which is why I have also recommended that additional local, regional and state actions be taken to provide incentives and strategic investments to support traded sector goods and services.
Despite these efforts, we always will have households with incomes below the median that struggle to meet their basic needs of housing, food, transportation, health and services. Since a household budget must cover all of these costs, housing subsidies in areas where transportation costs are high can reduce the effectiveness of the subsidy. Metro has adopted a policy in the RTP to reduce the number of cost-burdened households by targeting investments that can reduce transportation costs for these households.
I am proposing that we go a step further. Metro is a member of a consortium established to develop a Housing Equity and Opportunity Strategy for our region. We are awaiting response from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to see if we have been awarded a Sustainable Communities Grant for this effort. Whether or not we have federal support, the data in our region speaks for itself – we have to do a better job of improving public structures in areas with concentrations of affordable housing and we have to do a better job of locating affordable housing in areas with robust public structures and services, particularly transit. This will require new ways of working together – among community-based organizations, housing authorities, for-profit housing providers and traditional land use and public works departments. With 22 elected and community leaders already signed up as members of this consortium and more willing to join, I am confident we are ready to tackle these challenging issues around equity, investments and fairness. The result should be a better picture of the cost-burdened households for the future than we see now.
How can your desired outcome of "economic prosperity" be achieved if you add so many buildable acres and dwelling units but zero acres of employment land in the same area?
If a residential UGB expansion is made, Metro staff encourages planning mixed-use areas where appropriate to serve local retail and service needs. UGB expansions are not the only way to provide employment capacity. Changes to zoning designations as well as encouraging more efficient use of land are additional steps that may be taken by cities. The Metro Council cannot legally make UGB expansions for employment purposes that are not tied to a demonstrated regional need. The 2009 UGR points to a regional need for large industrial sites and Metro's COO has recommended addressing that need in an area north of Hillsboro.
When you spoke to us in Tualatin last October, you explained that Metro has six "desired outcomes" for our region, including "economic competitiveness and prosperity." How are we going to measure our "competitiveness," and how will we define "prosperity"?
Competitiveness and prosperity are being addressed through Greater Portland-Vancouver Indicators project, a collaborative effort among Metro, the Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies at Portland State University, and other partners. Working with a high-level advisory team, an Economy Opportunity Results Team is identifying what it believes are the most important outcomes (results) and drivers (of those results) to measure for our four-county region. (Eight other Results Teams are doing the same for Education, Civic Engagement, Arts and Culture, Healthy People, Safe People, Access and Mobility, Quality Housing and Communities, and Healthy Natural Environment.) Once the teams agree on the most important results to measure, they will begin to identify indicators.
In Metro's 2040 Growth Concept where are the jobs, and the tax base to pay for these dreams?
Metro agrees that a regional economic development strategy and a community investment strategy are needed to realize our region's goals. I have called for both in my recommendations.
Some officials contend that job growth and UGB expansions in Washington County impede growth in Clackamas County and divert public resources from Clackamas County. Do you agree?
Washington, Clackamas and Multnomah counties are all part of one economy. A coordinated regional economic development strategy is needed to ensure that our entire region prospers.
With the disparity in different jurisdictions that tax themselves differently and spend money on other things, do you see Metro getting into this? Putting their emphasis on different subjects?
Much of the focus of the Community Investment Strategy is identifying how local governments currently spend the limited money they have on investments that leverage private development and coming up with ideas to get more efficiencies and more leverage out of those investments. In addition, we also want to look at policies and processes in place in cities and counties that support or hinder private development. It is my hope that through this effort, local governments in our region will learn from each other and from the private sector and implement best practices with regard to policies and investments. Metro may also tie the allocation of regional funds to the implementation of certain policies or investments at the local level that enhance private development.
Many say we need to invest more state and local money within the state. Comment on how this can help or hinder leverage of investment.
The Regional Infrastructure Analysis conducted in 2008 identified a significant shortfall in investments for traditionally public structures (roads, bridges, schools, parks, etc.) needed to maintain existing downtowns and communities, and to support population and employment growth. This gap will make it harder for cities and counties to invest in critical public structures that lay the foundation for private investment in real estate, and in business creation, location and expansion. Two examples in my recommendations report provide good examples of where public investment can leverage private investment in housing and job creation: 1) the College Station housing complex (p. 12) and 2) the Troutdale Reynolds Industrial Park (p. 15). Both of these are illustrations of the ways that foundational public investments leverage private sector investment.
For the past 15 years, Washington Square has been designated a "regional center" in Metro's 2040 Growth Plan. So how are doing in fulfilling the visions of the 2040 Growth Plan, and what kinds of changes should we expect in this area over the next 20 years in terms of housing, jobs, transportation and economic development?
Washington Square is the one of the largest regional centers but currently has the smallest number of dwelling units per acre. The cities of Beaverton and Tigard have expressed their aspirations to create an 18-hour community with higher density housing and to maintain its retail shopping niche while providing more opportunities for residential and employment development. This regional center has potential to achieve greater development outcomes and enhanced economic activity but it will require careful and well-coordinated investments in transportation improvements, including local street connections, Highway 217 enhancements and bicycle and pedestrian trail improvements.
Michael, you and I are both parents, so I hope we can agree that public schools are an essential part of "complete communities" and "making the greatest place." Here in Washington County our public schools have been growing steadily, and we have been building two new schools every year for the past 10 years. Meanwhile, enrollment in the Portland Public School District has dropped by more than 3,000 students during the same period, and administrators there are faced with a tab of at least $1 billion to repair, modernize and stabilize the school buildings they already have. Do you expect a million more people over the next 20 years to reverse these trends by moving back to the urban centers of our region, or will the public school districts in Washington and Clackamas counties continue to build and expand?
Because we agree that schools are a critical component of creating and sustaining great neighborhoods and communities, we included schools in the first ever regional examination of future public structure needs in 2008. Our growth forecasts estimate the vast majority of the region's growth will be accommodated within the existing UGB, in both urban and suburban school districts. We are witnessing strong growth in student populations in suburban schools, and also a rebounding of student populations in many parts of the Portland Public School District. This means that school districts in all three counties will likely face the need to rehabilitate existing schools and, in most areas, expand capacity to serve growing populations of young people.
Define private sector experience and backgrounds of 25 members on the council. Housing plan doesn't work – why continue to pursue? Why does this have to be a concern? Go to business and let them handle it.
Looking at our region's past efforts to support affordable housing, I can see why you say housing plans don't work. Despite years of efforts, policies and investments, we still have affordable housing that is concentrated in areas with poor public structures and services, and we have governments that have not made commitments to support affordable housing. This is a problem that is not going away and one that has ripple effects through everything we care about in our region – vibrant and safe communities, quality education, access to jobs and, particularly, that the benefits and burdens of growth are distributed equitably. Private business alone can't handle this problem. To avoid concentrations of poverty, the very places we want to locate affordable housing are those with higher land values that make investments in affordable housing unprofitable without federal, state or local incentives.
It's hard, but we are not giving up. We have established a new consortium to develop a Housing Equity and Opportunity Strategy that will bring together community based organizations, housing authorities, land use, public works and others to revisit how we invest and where.