Portland is a PR machine for light rail & streetcar
Here are Some Facts About Portland Oregon
“It must always be remembered how cost-effectiveness works in the public sector: the cost IS the benefit.” - author unknown
Supreme Court: CRC is really a Light Rail Project with Highway only a bone for Vancouver
We set out the undisputed facts from the record. The South North MAX Light Rail Project involves the construction of a light rail line from Clackamas Town Center in Happy Valley, Oregon, to Vancouver, Washington, via the cities of Milwaukie and downtown Portland. To aid that project, the legislature enacted a law in 1996 that was never codified into the Oregon Revised Statutes: Or Laws 1996, ch 12. Before turning to the specific issues presented here, we first consider the 1996 act in some detail.
The act established decision-making procedures for the South North MAX 9 Light Rail Project and to provide for expedited appellate review of those decisions. The procedures are intended to maximize federal funding for the project and to ensure that the project is constructed in a timely and cost-effective manner. Utilization of the decision-making procedures results in a "land use final order," a defined term that means:
"a written order or orders of [Metro] council deciding:
"(a) The light rail route for the project or project extension, including its location;
"(b) Stations, lots and maintenance facilities for the project or project extension, including their locations; and
"(c) The highway improvements for the project or project extension, including their locations."
The procedures that the legislature prescribed in the 1996 act operate as follows. First, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) was required to establish the criteria later to be used by Metro to make its decisions leading to a land use final order. (Those criteria since have been adopted.) TriMet then applies to Metro for a land use final order. Id. § 6(1)(a). Metro, using the criteria established by LCDC, follows prescribed procedures to determine whether to enter a land use final order or to refer the matter back to TriMet. Id. §§ 6(1)(b), 7. When Metro adopts a land use final order, that order must be accompanied by findings of fact.
At issue here is the fifth land use final order adopted by Metro relating to the South North MAX Light Rail Project. (The first, adopted in 1998, addressed the South North MAX Light Rail Project as a whole. That original land use final order has been amended three times previously by separate land use final orders.) The present land use final order addresses one segment of the South North MAX Light Rail Project, known as the Columbia River Crossing Project. The Columbia River Crossing Project is the portion of the South North MAX Light Rail Project that extends from the Expo Center and the Interstate 5 (I-5)/Victory Boulevard Interchange in north Portland to the Oregon/Washington state line on the Columbia River.
Metro's land use final order for the Columbia River Crossing Project approves many highway improvements, and it is the extent of those highway improvements that form the basis of petitioners' objections to the land use final order. Although the land use final order contains less controversial provisions, such as realignment of the light rail route and relocation of the Hayden Island station, it also approves the replacement of the existing I-5 bridges across the Columbia with new northbound and southbound bridges. Only the lower deck of the new southbound bridge will carry the light rail line; the upper decks will carry highway traffic. The land use final order also approves the following:
"widening of Interstate 5 in both directions between approximately N Victory Boulevard and the Oregon/Washington state line on the Columbia River; new or modified interchanges at N Marine Drive, Hayden Island and Victory Boulevard; a new integrated rail/vehicular/bicycle[/]pedestrian bridge connecting Hayden Island with the Expo Center; and roadway realignments, widenings, modifications and new connections within the project area."
Petitioners sought review of Metro's land use final order before LUBA, arguing that the land use final order both exceeded Metro's statutory authority and "was not supported by substantial evidence in the whole record." Among other arguments, petitioners asserted that Metro had exceeded its statutory authority by adopting a land use final order that was, they contended, primarily devoted to highway improvements. According to petitioners, the highway improvements that the order approved form 75 percent of the cost of the Columbia River Crossing Project. Petitioners asserted that those highway improvements were not sufficiently connected to the light rail project because they were "not needed to mitigate adverse traffic impacts associated with the light rail route, stations, lots or maintenance facilities." Petitioners additionally argued that the land use final order was not supported by substantial evidence because there was no evidence that the highway improvements were necessary for the light rail.
LUBA concluded that the 1996 act allowed Metro to choose the highway improvements that could be included in the project. ("The text of the 1996 statute simply provides no basis for limiting the highway improvements that may be included in the Project in the way petitioners argue.").
LUBA noted that the act defined the project to include "'the light rail route, stations, lots and maintenance facilities, and any highway improvements to be included in the project.'" The definition of "highway improvements" similarly imposed very few limits on what highway improvements could be made part of the project, requiring only that the improvements must have been described in the project's draft and final environmental impact statements:
"'Highway improvements' means the highway improvements, if any, to be included in the project or project extension. The highway improvements shall be selected from among the highway improvements, if any, described in a Draft Statement or Final Statement for the project or project extension.'"
All the highway improvements at issue here had been described in the draft environmental impact statement.
LUBA additionally noted that one of the criteria that LCDC had adopted referred to "associated highway improvements." Even assuming that that criterion limited the highway improvements to those "associated" with the light rail, LUBA concluded that that relationship had been shown: Metro specifically had found that the highway improvements were "necessary to obtain support for the necessary local funding from Washington for the light rail component."
LUBA also rejected petitioners' claim that the highway improvements had to be supported by substantial evidence showing that they were necessary to the light rail siting. Petitioners had not identified any law requiring such evidence, and LUBA already had concluded that the 1996 act did not require that the improvements be "necessary" to the project.
Petitioners argue that Metro exceeded its statutory authority because Metro has not been given "unbridled discretion" over what highway improvements may be included in the South North MAX Light Rail Project under the 1996 act. Petitioners assert that the highway improvements must have a "sufficient nexus" to the light rail siting. Petitioners contend that the only highway improvements with a "sufficient nexus" are those "in furtherance of or necessitated by the Light Rail siting." The land use final order at issue here, petitioners urge, contains significant highway improvements "that not only dwarf the Light Rail siting but, at times, are unrelated and not necessitated by the Light Rail siting." Petitioners identify the highway improvements to North Marine Drive in particular as not being necessitated by the light rail siting.
Petitioners attempt to draw support for their argument from a number of provisions of the 1996 act. In the main, petitioners rely on the definition of "project":
"'Project' means the portion of the South North MAX Light Rail Project within the Portland metropolitan area urban growth boundary * * *. The project includes the light rail route, stations, lots and maintenance facilities, and any highway improvements to be included in the project."
Because the other items in that list -- "the light rail route, stations, lots and maintenance facilities" -- are all necessary to the light rail, petitioners conclude that a similar restriction should exist regarding "highway improvements."
Petitioners also note that a number of provisions of the 1996 act qualify the term "highway improvements" with the prepositional phrase "for the project." (1996 act establishes the only procedures applicable to land use decisions "on the highway improvements for the project"); (directing LCDC to establish criteria to be used by Metro Council to determine "the highway improvements for the project"); (land use final order must establish "the highway improvements for the project"). Petitioners suggest that the phrase "highway improvements for the project" requires that some relationship -- viz., a "substantial nexus" -- exist between the light rail and the highway improvements.
We need not determine to what extent (if any) the 1996 act requires highway improvements to have a demonstrated relationship to the light rail siting.As we shall explain, Metro found that the construction of new highway bridges across the Columbia River were required politically, to obtain the necessary Washington State support for the project. Metro also found that the other highway improvements were necessary either because of the new bridges or because of the light rail itself. Thus, even if petitioners are correct that the 1996 act permits only those highway improvements that are necessary to the light rail siting, that necessity exists for all the highway improvements described in Metro’s land use final order.
Metro found -- and petitioners do not dispute -- that the political necessity of new highway bridges over the Columbia was demonstrated early on, and it was entirely beyond the control of Metro. Washington State approval is necessary because the project extends into Vancouver, but the voters of Clark County, Washington, rejected at the ballot box a light-rail-only bridge across the Columbia. As Metro explained, "[i]t was clear from this action that a stand-alone light rail project was not politically acceptable to the voters of Clark County."5 14 Afterward, a bistate group called the I-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership was formed to examine the question. In its published conclusions, the Partnership explained that the area transportation problems required a comprehensive solution. As Metro later summarized the Partnership's conclusions, Oregon and Washington had different interests: Although "Oregon interests required emphasis on a multi-modal solution * * * because of the difficulty of
accommodating [traffic] demand through a highway-only expansion of I-5," Clark County interests "needed a highway element because the land use patterns of Clark County require a system with greater dependence on auto access."
For those reasons, it was politically impossible for the light rail project to proceed without also building new interstate bridges across the Columbia River:
"The Council finds that the Project reflects negotiation and compromise among governmental bodies and that for all practical purposes, the light rail component could not have gone forward without the highway component and the highway component could not have gone forward without the light rail component."
Or as Metro later summarized it: "There is no light rail without the freeway bridge[s] being replaced." Thus, Metro found, "the highway improvements are necessitated by the light rail improvements."
Although political realities may have made the new bridges necessary, the bridges themselves made additional highway improvements necessary, including alterations to the North Marine Drive interchanges specifically mentioned by petitioners.6 The light rail construction itself also made necessary other changes to North Marine Drive.7 Petitioners do not attempt to refute those findings by Metro.
5 More specifically, Metro explained in its findings of fact that the original project proposal would have crossed the Columbia River
"via a proposed new bridge for light rail transit purposes only west of the existing I-5/Interstate Bridge. TriMet successfully obtained voter support of General Obligation Bonds for one-third of the local match in November 1994 by a wide margin. That ballot measure was predicated on a state legislative contribution of another one-third and a Washington State/Clark County contribution of the final one-third. In early 1995 the voters of Clark Co. turned down a ballot measure for their local match contribution[.] It was clear from this action that a stand-alone light rail project was not politically acceptable to the voters of Clark County." (Emphasis added.)
6. The findings of fact by Metro state:
"The Council further finds that construction of these new bridge structures will necessitate improvements to the I-5 highway and interchanges, including the Hayden Island and Marine Drive Interchanges, and to the local street network that connects those interchanges including realignments, widening or extensions of or new connections between N Marine Drive [and other listed streets] * * *. [Metro Council] also finds that additional highway improvements are needed to integrate the transit corridor extension into the existing transportation network and to facilitate multimodal access to and from the existing light rail station at the Expo Center and a new light rail station at Hayden Island."
Elsewhere in the findings, Metro explained:
"[T]he associated highway improvements directly and indirectly serve the light rail improvements by accommodating the alignment (e.g., new I-5 bridges, new arterial bridge over the North Portland Harbor) or providing regional and local access to the Expo Center and Hayden Island light rail stations (e.g., I-5 interchange improvements, access and circulation improvements and roadway modifications on Hayden Island and in the vicinity of the Marine Drive interchange). The Council further finds that some of the highway improvements are needed for engineering purposes to accommodate the new bridge containing the light rail alignment and the modifications to the I-5 interchanges and their approaches."
7 Because the light rail tracks required "grade-separated crossings" with
existing roads, those crossings "necessitate modifications to the I-5/Marine Drive
Interchange and connecting roadways including the realignments of N Vancouver Way
and N Marine Drive."
|Cheaper & Better Transit|
|GM & The Streetcar|
|Commute Time Chart|
|Top 10 Bus|
|Clackamas Public Safety|
|Zoneing Increases Cost, Hurts Economy|