The Metro Council has reallocated some Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Plan (MTIP) funds to keep I-5 Rose Quarter Improvement Project construction advancing in Portland. The action ultimately stems from the rescindment last year of hundreds of millions of dollars of federal grant funding.

The council on Thursday approved an amendment to the 2024-2027 MTIP for three Rose Quarter projects. The first includes development and right-of-way efforts, relocation of utilities, and acquisition of permanent signs and software. The second includes construction of stormwater facilities, a structural deck overlay, bridge rail upgrades, and seismic retrofits for two bridges. The third includes Holladay/Hassalo bridge work, construction of another structural deck overlay, replacement of bridge and median rail, a seismic retrofit, signage upgrades, retaining wall and embankment work, and reconstruction of local street and light rail facilities.

The I-5 Rose Quarter Improvement Project involves construction of a cover over Interstate 5, a new crossing on Hancock Street atop the cover, multimodal local street improvements, an auxiliary lane and wider shoulders, a pedestrian and bicycle bridge on I-5, and relocation of an I-5 southbound off-ramp further south. The total project is being designed and constructed in phases.

“This amendment is important but is primarily administrative to align our project programming with the funding realities of the rescinded Reconnecting Communities (and Neighborhoods) grant and (the project’s) phasing,” said Monica Blanchard, interim program director of the Oregon Department of Transportation.

The MTIP amendment is in alignment with the Oregon Transportation Commission‘s aim to maintain continuous construction, Blanchard said. The OTC approved a similar amendment to the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program in May.

The total net decrease in the MTIP is approximately $382.2 million, mostly because of the rescindment of Reconnecting Communities and Neighborhoods (RCN) grant funding, said Gabriela Lopez, senior transportation planner for Metro.

The formal amendment decreases the total programmed funding from approximately $872 million to approximately $489.8 million, a staff report states. Approximately $67.5 million in RCN funds previously obligated are available for preliminary engineering, right-of-way acquisition and utility relocation activities.

The MTIP amendment redistributes funds from other project phases, including $3 million from Phase 1 construction to preliminary engineering, and $18 million from Phase 1 to Phase 1A (currently 40 percent complete). Also, the construction phase of the Broadway to Weidler Phase 1 project has decreased by approximately $402.9 million, including reallocation of $21 million to preliminary engineering and Phase 1A construction.

The total project has increased in Phase 1 from $247.6 million to $250.3 million, increased in Phase 1A from $75 million to $93 million, and decreased in Phase 1B from $549.4 million to $146.5 million.

Looking ahead, ODOT plans to continue to seek funding for construction of Phase 1C. That work would include extending the northbound merging lane, completing the southbound merging lane, building the southern portion of the highway cover, and performing the full Broadway/Weidler build-out.

Additional work beyond Phase 1C is unfunded and would include building the remaining two-thirds of the highway cover, multimodal improvements, the I-5 flyover, the pedestrian/bicycle bridge, northbound merge lane and I-5 bridge work.

According to the project’s website, the current cost estimate for the I-5 Rose Quarter Improvement Project is between $1.96 billion and $2.08 billion.

The post Metro reallocates funds to advance I-5 Rose Quarter work appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The Oregon Transportation Commission on Tuesday voted to approve an approximately $3.6 billion increase in funding for the Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) Program.

The amendment to the 2024-2027 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program increases funding from approximately $2.05 billion to approximately $5.7 billion for a first set of Interstate Bridge projects. In total, they are expected to cost $7.65 billion, interim IBR Program administrator Carley Francis said. Those projects encompass program management, which includes right of way and utility relocation costs, preliminary engineering and construction for the new bridge, connections to Interstate 5 and State Route 14 and Hayden Island, removal of the existing Interstate Bridge spans, and pre-construction tolling. It will also include light rail infrastructure design north and south of the new bridge.

“We had not previously included bridge removal in the STIP amendment because of the time frame; it would occur outside of the STIP horizon,” Francis said. “However, in focusing on maintenance of traffic for river users, and considering opportunities both for combining contracts and also just managing that risk of river movement and having one entity be both constructing and removing the bridges and be responsible for that, it provided some opportunities.”

The cost to remove the current bridge is expected to be $390 million.

The STIP funding comes from general obligation bonding via Oregon House Bill 5005 (2023), a Bridge Investment Program (BIP) grant from the Federal Highway Administration, toll revenue, a Move Ahead Washington grant, and a Mega grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Specifically, the STIP amendment includes an increase from approximately $554.6 million to $795.36 million for costs associated with preliminary engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and utility relocation; an increase from approximately $1.47 billion to $4.78 billion for preliminary engineering and construction work that will allow the completion of the new bridge adjacent to the existing one; an increase from $24.59 million to $51.9 million for pre-launch activities related to tolling; and an allocation of $50.7 million to advance design for light rail elements north and south of the bridge.

Meanwhile, Francis said, the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council is set to vote June 2 whether to amend the state’s 2026-2029 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the Metro Council is slated to vote June 25 whether to amend the 2024-2027 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Plan. Both proposals would increase funding for the project.

If those proposals were to gain approval, federal agencies would issue an amended Record of Decision (ROD) and secure the obligation of the remaining $1.5 billion of BIP funding and $600 million of Mega funding.

“There is $546 million of BIP funds that would expire if we do not obligate them by the end of September,” Francis said.

The IBR Program team expects to receive an ROD this summer. That would allow the project to enter the construction phase, including the construction contractor procurement process. Design and cost negotiations would occur in 2027, and bridge construction activities would begin in 2028.

According to the IBR Program website, the entire project cost is estimated at $13.5 billion to $15.2 billion with a likely cost of $14.4 billion. It will remain an estimate until a guaranteed maximum price is determined, Francis said.

There will be a robust governance process from both states overseeing the project going forward, said Travis Brouwer, deputy director of revenue, finance and compliance for the Oregon Department of Transportation. It will likely include regularly updating the state transportation commissions and legislatures on construction costs.

Brouwer added that Tuesday’s vote commits funds that are available now and already committed. Any decision for additional funding would be brought before the Oregon Transportation Commission, he said.

The two states’ transportation commissions will meet June 5 to discuss toll rates and options for the project.

The post Oregon boosts STIP funding for Interstate Bridge to $5.7 billion appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The Metro Council on Thursday passed a resolution that directs staff to create a Housing Production Accelerator Fund through which $5 million from Metro’s Construction Excise Tax (CET) will be used to accelerate housing production. The program will be designed to provide technical assistance, local staffing capacity, and predevelopment support.

Current estimates show that Portland still needs 27,000 more homes to support its existing population and 151,000 more to keep up with forecasted population growth over the next 20 years, a Metro staff report states.

In a work session last month, the Metro Council supported the $5 million investment of CET reserves to accelerate housing production in the region. Funding will be made available to regional partners.

Also last month, the council adopted the regional housing coordination strategy for collaborative work with cities and counties. The accelerator fund will help advance five strategies: funding pre-development activities necessary to unlock public properties and others whose owners are interested in developing affordable housing but lack the expertise required, expanding resources available for brownfield assessment and exploring grant opportunities for small-scale remediation that leads to middle housing and multifamily housing development, assisting cities and counties with approved housing production strategies, offering technical assistance to support planning and implementation of housing production and affordability and choice, and exploring regional land bank strategies.

Metro staff will design the grant and technical assistance programs, hold listening sessions to get feedback on program design and effectiveness of strategies, and increase management capacity.

“We also want to avoid predetermining funding allocations across the five actions,” said Hau Hagedorn, community investment manager for Metro. “Instead, we intend to offer technical assistance on a first come, first served basis to move funds quickly to projects ready for development and award grants to jurisdictions that are ready to move projects forward that are aligned with the actions.”

Allocation of funds is expected to take about three to five years, but the goal is to do so as soon as possible, said Malu Wilkinson, planning, development and research deputy director for Metro.

Councilor Mary Nolan said that time frame is not as urgent as she believes it should be for a $5 million investment. She also asked about measurements for success. As the program is designed, Hagedorn said, staff will inform the council what is expected to be accomplished this year and beyond.

“As we work more with our partners around the region to define this so it is most useful for them, we will be defining those metrics that we can bring back to you to talk about how successful and how much impact this $5 million will have,” Wilkinson added.

The resolution passed by a 6-1 margin, with Nolan voting no. Staff will return before the council to provide an update on program specifics.

The post Metro devoting $5 million to help spur housing production appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The Metro Council last week added three Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) projects to the 2024-2027 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) to meet federal project delivery requirements. The Interstate Bridge replacement project is in the design phase; construction is expected to begin next year.

The council voted 6-1 on Thursday to approve the amendment (Mary Nolan voted no). The item will next go before the Oregon Transportation Commission on July 31. The commission’s approval is required for authorization of the funding for the three projects. If the commission were to deny the amendment, the Metro Council’s decision would be considered invalid and would not be sent to the Federal Highway Administration for final approval.

The June 2025 MTIP contains three projects related to the effort to replace the Interstate Bridge and improve related interchanges. One is a modification to the I-5 Columbia River (Interstate) Bridge project and two new projects are related to tolling and the construction of the replacement bridge. The combined amendment is $1.9 billion, said Ted Leybold, Metro transportation policy director.

The I-5 Columbia River (Interstate) Bridge project contains the nonconstruction phases for the IBR program. Funding for the planning and initial preliminary engineering phase was obligated prior to development of the 2024-2027 MTIP. Planning and design are under way; the work includes right-of-way and utility relocation activities for early construction packages, as well as continuing overall program management and development work. The total MTIP programming cost has increased from $103 million to approximately $554.6 million.

One new project for pre-completion of tolling infrastructure calls for installing signage, related structures, and electrical systems in preparation of new tolling operations on and near the Interstate Bridge. The total MTIP programming cost is approximately $24.6 million.

The other new project added to the MTIP is for the replacement of the Interstate Bridge. It will advance post-NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) design and construction activities for the new bridge over the Columbia River between Oregon and Washington, downstream of the existing structure. The work will support the construction of two new bridges to accommodate highway, transit and active transportation modes. The total MTIP programming amount is approximately $1.5 billion.

Tolling rates will be set by the Oregon Transportation Commission and the Washington State Transportation Commission. Pre-completion tolling on the Interstate Bridge is expected to start in 2027.

Ray Mabey, assistant program manager for the IBR program and the state bridge engineer for the Oregon Department of Transportation, said tolling rates will be variable depending on time of day. IBR program staffers are studying possible tolling rates; all scenarios include a discount for low-income drivers.

According to the , the total estimated project cost is from $5 billion to $7.5 billion.

Full project completion is expected to require 10 to 15 years.

The post Metro adds $1.9 billion of I-5 bridge projects to MTIP appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Greg Johnson joined the Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) program in July 2020. He was hired to do what his predecessors could not: get Oregon and Washington officials, environmentalists, the trucking industry, commuter advocates and federal transportation funders to agree on a project to replace the bridge carrying Interstate 5 across the Columbia River.

Johnson most recently served in early planning for the Gordie Howe International Bridge, a structure now under construction that will span from Detroit to Windsor, Ontario, Canada.

Earlier this month he appeared during a Metro Council meeting that resulted in the group approving allocation of $36 million for Interstate Bridge engineering and planning.

Recently, Johnson spoke with the 91��Ƶ. This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

91��Ƶ: What do you hope to accomplish with the Interstate Bridge replacement project? Or, to put it another way, what does success look like for this project?

Greg Johnson: What I think the program can accomplish for this region is to create a multimodal corridor for folks to have choices about how they choose to cross the river at this location. Currently, it is driven purely by automobile and truck traffic, because if you ride a bike it’s kind of dangerous. It’s narrow. It’s not a pleasant experience. The transit that goes across there currently is an express bus that rides in the same backed-up traffic as the other vehicles.

91��Ƶ: Some people think of this as just a bridge, but it’s really quite a bit of work on both sides of the river. What does that look like – the changes to the interchanges and the distances leading up to the bridge on both sides?

Johnson: So this is a five-mile corridor, split fairly evenly, both in Oregon and in Washington. There are seven interchanges within this five-mile stretch. And this is not a choice that any modern designer of today would have, but these are the circumstances we are blessed with. So we have to make sure that those seven interchanges operate as efficiently and effectively as possible. The improvements to the interchanges – (we’re) looking at auxiliary lanes to separate traffic on the ramps from the through traffic. And that is tremendously important to how this will function appropriately going into the future.

91��Ƶ: In Michigan, you worked on the Gordie Howe bridge. What did you learn from that process that you can bring to bear on Oregon and Washington’s friendly relationship?

Johnson: Yeah, I was involved in the preliminary planning stages representing the Michigan (Department of Transportation) to the Canadian government – both provincial and the Canadian federal government. So it was an interesting process to say the least.

One of the key things was that there is no perfect project. In building an international project, everyone had their hopes and wishes and things that they aspired for the project to be. And we tried our darndest to thread the needle to get to something that both sides can live with. And eventually we did with Gordie Howe.

So, the art of compromise, the art of saying it’s not a perfect solution, but it’s a doggone good solution. That’s the lesson that I bring to this project: that there is no solution that’s going to make everybody happy. But we’re going to make improvements to the seismic ability, to the congestion, to the safety – all of those things are going to be vastly improved with this new construction.

And to our critics on the environmental side, this is going to be a greener segment of roadway than they have seen in projects in the past.

91��Ƶ: We recently heard from (Metro councilors) about their concerns: what they would regard as too large a bridge or too many lanes or too much of a vehicle focus. Do you have any immediate reaction to those concerns from them?

Johnson: First off, I was very heartened by the vote, five to one, and we’ve been talking with individual Metro councilors to have them understand what this program is and what it is not. So I was very thankful that they deemed the project important enough to continue the funding to get to the answers.

But one of the things that we know is that doing nothing or doing something that is going to perpetuate the problems out into the future is just not an acceptable scenario. Some of the questions that they asked, we already have incorporated those things into our models and into how we are approaching and screening our design options.

So I don’t think it’s a problem from our standpoint. It does add more work on some details, but we will get those answers to them, without a doubt, as we are bringing the project before boards and councils … later in the spring for endorsement of the project itself.

91��Ƶ: In Oregon, we certainly hear a lot more from elected officials on the south side of the river. What are you hearing from Washington about what they want out of the project, and are those two compatible?

Johnson: Some of the concerns we hear on the Washington side are related to the commuter experience, because a number of the folks who cross the bridge every day are commuting from Clark County, heading into Oregon for work. Those folks (ask) “Are you going to reduce the amount of time that it takes to cross this bridge?”

What I tell folks is we are beyond the point of building our way out of congestion. We know that that’s a fool’s errand. But what we can do is make this crossing operate better.

We will have a design in place that takes away that if I have a crash, I can move it to the shoulder and quickly get it gone – out of the roadway system. Currently when there’s a crash, it shuts down two lanes of the bridge, and the backups are tremendous. The randomness of some of the bridge lifts – and they’re not random, but they appear to drivers as random because we keep them out of the peak hours – that will be gone. The accidents that are caused by the tight spacing of the ramps, we’re looking to solve that problem.

All of those things add up to a more consistent, predictable trip for folks going across the bridge. And if folks can predict their travel every day, that’s a better experience for folks.

And once again, if we can divert some of the single-occupancy vehicle trips and get those folks onto transit, or folks who now say “Wow, it’s safer and nicer to walk or bike,” then once again that helps the overall traffic going through the corridor.

91��Ƶ: So the new bridge, will it have to lift as well or will it be tall enough that bridge traffic can pass underneath?

Johnson: It will be tall enough. We will not have a lift span on the new bridge. It’ll be much taller, but still not too tall to interfere with traffic going to Pearson Airfield or PDX. But there will be no lifts whatsoever, and we’re doing a river survey to make sure that all of the users now and future users will be able to cross under our bridge without a problem.

91��Ƶ: It was before your time, but of course, the Columbia River Crossing effort ended in failure. And some of those same politics remain in place on both sides of the river. What can you do, what can ODOT do, to avoid the same thing happening this time around?

Johnson: We’ve learned the lessons that happened around the CRC, and we know that having a constant conversation with the state legislators in each state is critically important. So we have the bistate legislative committee that we’re meeting with on a regular basis and keeping them informed of what’s going on. So we are being very, very intentional in our information sharing and keeping them up to speed and being very transparent.

We’re also talking to other members of each state legislature to make sure that they are up to speed because the vote – it won’t just be folks who are who are represented on that bistate committee; it will be the entirety of the legislature in each state. So we’re talking to any and everybody about the importance of this to statewide interest.

91��Ƶ: The most recent cost estimate for the project that we’ve seen was $4.5 billion. Is that kind of the ballpark estimate?

Johnson: Yeah, that’s our latest thinking on an estimate for cost. But once again, as soon as we get through this spring, we will have a better idea of what we’re going to build. Right now we’re probably at the 10,000-foot level.

So right now we think we have a ballpark that we’re operating in. But once again, time is not the friend of inflation. So we know that time and keeping on a schedule is tremendously important to have a cost-containment effort.

It doesn’t mean is that we’re going to skip any steps, but it does mean that we’re going to be very intentional and paying attention to our schedule. The old saying about time being money – time is money in this case.

91��Ƶ: In the other big interstate project in our area – the I-5 Rose Quarter Improvement Project – they’ve had to revise upward their cost estimates over time. It went from a few hundred million dollars to well over $1 billion. And I was wondering if you anticipate cost estimates rising for the Interstate Bridge as well, given the cost of steel and concrete and labor and all those inputs?

Johnson: We’re paying close attention to the construction pricing indexes, both regionally, nationally and internationally. So we’re tracking that, and that is a part of our estimates.

We are partnered with the Rose Quarter because we need to understand what they are going to be doing in their timelines. Because, once again, we’re going to be looking at the same pool of labor to get these things done. So we’re paying close attention.

91��Ƶ: Do you expect that the Interstate Bridge will be tolled?

Johnson: I do. If you look at projects of this size across the country, almost to a project, tolling plays a part because when you’re talking billions of dollars, and the transportation budget for each state is a fraction of that, this would decimate the abilities of both states to do their normal business, if they put all of the resources they have into this project.

As it is, we’re going to make the making a large ask of each state between $1 billion and $1.2 billion for the local match of this. The federal dollars, we think we’re well positioned. But we know that those two sources will not cover the entirety of cost related to this. So tolling is a reality of projects of this size across the country.

We understand that there are some folks who have to cross this bridge every day, and some will be low-income folks. So we’re looking at how we can make tolling equitable.

91��Ƶ: There has been discussion of tolling on the I-5 Rose Quarter Improvement Project and also on I-205. Have these been looked at holistically, that tolling could be coming to all these interstates and how they interact with each other?

Johnson: We are looking at the tolling scenarios that ODOT is projecting for I-5 and I-205, and so all of our modeling and scenarios reflect that.

On our bridge, our primary goal is to raise revenue to pay for a portion of the bridge. But we also know that by having variable-rate tolling, we will be accomplishing some of the goals that we have of driving behavior, and having people take trips at different times rather than at peak periods.

91��Ƶ: I just want to ask about the physical footprint of the bridge. I’m sure you’ve heard the story of how the original building of I-5 cut through the Black community in Albina and North Portland. How do you minimize the footprint of the bridge on both sides and avoid disturbance to neighborhoods?

Johnson: We’re looking at that issue very carefully. We have an Equity Advisory Group that meets on a monthly basis that holds us accountable for design efforts.

There will be some unavoidable impacts – but we’re trying to make those impacts as least as possible by doing smarter things.

To minimize footprint, sometimes you will see straight vertical walls instead of slopes. We are looking at all of those ways to have as small an impact as possible. We know on the Washington side, Fort Vancouver is very sensitive to tribal governments. So we’re trying to have as small of a footprint as we cross through that area. But we know we’re going to have impacts. We know that there will be unavoidable things, but we will be seeking to mitigate those things and make sure that folks are well informed as to what we are looking at for options and that their voices are heard and reflected in those final outcomes.

91��Ƶ: Will there be light rail on the bridge?

Johnson: That’s one of the big questions that we are working on, that we are modeling. Currently, both C-TRAN and TriMet have members embedded in our team that are helping us work through those issues. But we’re hoping later this spring, we will have a recommendation of what is to be constructed for high-capacity transit.

We also know that this is probably the one and only opportunity to have high-capacity transit across the river at this location. So we’re being very, very careful and very deliberate in how we are looking at these issues. It is tremendously important that we get it right – so more to come on that.

We think it’s more than likely going to be a hybrid, because previously, C-TRAN was not operating bus rapid transit at the time of the CRC. Now they have two very robust lines and a third in the works, so we know that Bus Rapid Transit is a viable way to move a lot of folks. So we’re looking at those issues very carefully.

91��Ƶ: Do you expect the bridge will have dedicated lanes or dedicated space for bicyclists and pedestrians?

Johnson: Yes. Under every scenario that we are looking at, there will be an expanded facility for biking, walking and rolling – for what’s termed “active transportation.” But not only that – we know that just having a facility that crosses the river is not enough. We have to tie into existing facilities and make sure there are connections and easy ways for folks to access the facility crossing the river.

91��Ƶ: During construction, will the existing Interstate Bridge remain up? How are you planning for traffic impacts during construction and what is the fate of the existing bridge if a new one is built?

Johnson: Right now, the game plan is to have the existing bridge remain in service until the new bridge is built. And there will be a time when we’ll have to shut down to make a tie-in, and it will be a partial shutdown. It will be so disruptive to the flow of traffic in the area, so we’ll incentivize any contractor to make that connection and move traffic to the new bridge as quickly as possible.

But the old bridge will be there until we get traffic switched, and then we will piece by piece remove the old bridge and recycle parts of it. We hope that we’ll be able to incorporate other parts into other useful things on the project footprint, such as crushing concrete for things as simple as armoring slopes so we don’t get erosion – things of that nature.

Currently it costs $1.2 million (annually) to maintain (the existing) bridge, and that cost is only going to go higher as inflation creeps up. Some folks have asked why don’t we just leave the old bridge and use it as supplemental? It’s a very expensive bridge to maintain and keep in place. And then, it still would be seismically vulnerable.

91��Ƶ: How about outreach to contractors? Have you begun that process yet?

Johnson: Not in a structured way as of yet. Contractors have been knocking at the door, wondering where we are in the process. So we’ve – on an ad hoc basis – answered those questions about where we are in general. But once we start getting to a point where we have a more defined project, we’re going to bring in contractors to get them fully up to speed on what this is so they can start their planning processes, because this is going to be such a large undertaking. It’s going to absorb a lot of local contractors and attract a lot of national and, potentially, international contractors who will want to be a part of this. So those conversations will probably start in 2023.

We know the workforce is going to be key critical. So we’re going to be working with the industry – both the labor unions as well as the contractors – to set up pre-apprenticeship and apprenticeship programs. We’re going to be working closely with (I-5 Rose Quarter Improvement Project team members), since they will be getting started before us, to make sure that folks can go seamlessly from pre-apprenticeship to apprentice to journeyman in the span of the lifetime of these two projects.

So we’re looking for folks to build careers. That’s one of the challenges in the construction industry is we have a lot of people aging out. So we have to find new blood and new ways to bring a more diverse face to who is working on projects.

91��Ƶ: Is there anything you would like to add?

Johnson: One of the things I’ve been stressing to all of the partners, to the community members in our advisory groups, is we cannot let perfect – the perfect project – be the enemy of the good. There is no such thing as a perfect project. But there are some very good projects that are out there and some very good ideas for this one that can improve the circumstances.

The post Building relationships to build a bridge appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The Metro Council on Thursday approved $36 million for engineering and planning a new Interstate Bridge between Portland and Vancouver, Washington, but also passed guidance demanding transportation agencies work to reduce vehicle travel, conduct new traffic forecasts and analyze health impacts.

The decisions illustrated Metro’s divided role as a regional planning agency whose council has deep misgivings of approving a mega-bridge that would encourage behavior that worsens climate change.

“We’re basically saying we can’t tolerate a bridge that’s 10 or 12 lanes wide,” Councilor Shirley Craddick said. “It doesn’t work. It’s not healthy, and it’s not good for the health of our region and our state and, of course, our world.”

The council’s decisions Thursday allow planning for the Interstate Bridge replacement project to move forward, while putting the Oregon and Washington transportation departments on notice that Metro will not accept a massive bridge focused on vehicle capacity.

Ahead is a June vote on a “locally preferred alternative” for the bridge design. Some councilors hinted they may not support a bridge that doesn’t meet Metro’s goals.

Council President Lynn Peterson said the resolution laying out Metro’s expectations for the project is meant to provide clarity for the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program and its driving agencies, including the Oregon Department of Transportation.

“This is something that wasn’t done last time and sets a higher bar for how we proceed as a region, and with our partners,” Peterson said.

Councilor Mary Nolan said she would not vote to approve the project if it doesn’t meet Metro’s expectations.

“We need the project to meet these standards to earn our approval,” she said. “It is as much holding ourselves accountable to what we’ve promised the public that we expect from this project, and to give clear advance communication to our partners, who I consider to be partners in this project.”

Nolan and Program Administrator Greg Johnson, who appeared remotely from an airport terminal, engaged in a tense back-and-forth. Nolan told Johnson a slight revision of the Columbia River Crossing would be rejected.

“You understand then that the Metro Council is telling you that a little tweaked version of the old (locally preferred alternative) is not going to cut it with us?” Nolan said.

“I do understand that,” Johnson replied. “But I need everyone to understand that this is a bistate program with eight individual partners that each have individual needs. So we hear you loud and clear and we are going to seek to meet the concerns and commit to the things that we can to get this project (moving) forward.”

The amendments adopted by Metro were little different from those proposed by a coalition of community groups including The Street Trust, 1,000 Friends of Oregon and No More Freeways. The Metro Council heard hours of public testimony that was mostly critical of the bridge project.

“We are pleased to see the Metro Council, as a partner of the Interstate 5 Bridge Project, create clear goals and accountability mechanisms to meet the region’s goals for a sustainable, healthy and effective transportation system,” the coalition stated in a news release. “We hope open communication and precise analysis of the options on the table will help ODOT and the IBR leadership right-size this project and create high-quality multimodal transportation and positive community impacts.”

Metro, in its resolution, requested an “investment-grade” traffic analysis for the project. That step is usually taken later in a project timeline. Metro councilors, following demands from critics including economist Joe Cortright, asked for the analysis now to make sure the bridge’s size follows traffic modeling with tolling in place.

Metro officials also requested check-ins every 30 days with the project team to make sure the bridge design is on track.

The post Metro sets guardrails for bridge replacement appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

In a last-minute push, the Oregon Senate last weekend passed a sweeping land-use bill that allows construction of duplexes and other small multifamily structures in residential neighborhoods.

House Bill 2001 carries the potential to transform many of Oregon’s historic urban neighborhoods. Some homeowners decried the zoning reforms as a bid to change the character of their neighborhoods, but housing and tenant advocates successfully pushed the bill by arguing that housing has become unaffordable to many Oregon residents.

The Senate passed the bill Sunday after Republican lawmakers returned from Idaho, where several had fled to deprive the Legislature of a quorum. A spokeswoman for Gov. Kate Brown said she intends to sign the bill.

Oregon will become the first state to require cities to allow duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes. The requirement applies to cities with populations of 10,000 or greater, or any residential zone in the Portland-metro area.

Advocates said more “middle housing” positioned between single-family homes and apartment complexes will benefit small families, renters and people of color who risk being priced out of Oregon’s cities.

“It is the kind of gentle infill that can be very compatible within existing neighborhoods, and it’s long overdue,” said Mary Kyle McCurdy, deputy director of 1,000 Friends of Oregon.

The bill was backed by House Speaker Tina Kotek and other Democratic leaders, and came as Portland advanced its own Residential Infill Project with similar provisions for increasing housing density. Cities are required under the bill to bring their land-use rules in line with H.B. 2001 by June 30, 2021, or June 30, 2022, depending on the city’s size.

Portland has until June 30, 2021, to come into compliance with H.B. 2001. The Bureau of Planning and Sustainability plans to bring the Residential Infill Project and related changes before the City Council in the fall, the bureau stated in a news release.

It remains to be seen how the density push will play out in Oregon cities. Housing and policy professionals were skeptical that the zoning change alone would spur a rush of redevelopment.

“I think people will be surprised how little things change,” said Eli Spevak, owner of Orange Splot LLC, a Portland-based developer and general contractor that builds townhomes and other urban housing types. “The way to think of it is it expands choices, but in most residential neighborhoods, the choice people will make is single-family homes, as they have in the past.”

Historically, most housing units in Portland were single-family even before modern zoning was in place that limited housing development options, Spevak said.

Housing analysts also pointed to Portland’s experience with corner-lot duplexes, which have been allowed for years.

“In general, we haven’t seen a mass demolition and new development of duplexes on corners,” said Tyler Bump, a project director for ECONorthwest.

In many cases, it makes sense to leave single-family homes in place, Bump said.

“When we look at development feasibility of middle housing, it’s still challenging,” he said. “The existing single-family house is the highest and best use in most transactions, most sales. There’s a lot of value in single-family houses, and there’s a lot of demand for that still.”

ECONorthwest is at work on an analysis of middle-housing development potential, but the findings were not yet available.

Bump suggested some of Portland’s close-in suburbs, such as Gresham and Beaverton, may be well-positioned with land values high enough to support middle housing.

Other likely places are those areas newly added within urban growth boundaries, McCurdy said. In December, the Metro Council voted to add inside growth boundaries 2,181 acres that could accommodate at least 1,325 homes in Hillsboro, Beaverton and King City, according to the regional government.

Oregon is not alone in pushing to undo restrictive single-family zoning. Minneapolis made national headlines by allowing middle housing throughout the city, and Seattle recently passed rules to encourage construction of accessory dwelling units. In California, where arguably the nation’s most severe housing crisis is ongoing, legislators recently killed a bill that would have allowed denser housing near transit lines, but housing advocates have vowed to keep pushing for change.

For developers, investors, contractors and architects, middle housing is likely to be the domain of small operators. The projects are not large enough to generate returns that would interest major investors and firms, housing professionals said. Investors “want 40 to 50 units at least,” Spevak said.

Z Design-Build is among the small firms that could benefit from expanded housing options. Owner-operator Pete Zenczak is at work with partners on a townhomes project in the Capitol Highway area of Southwest Portland, and another in Southeast Portland. Early plans for the Capitol Highway project call for two duplexes. It could be even denser, Zenczak said.

“Depending on when the infill project goes through, we’re going to include attached ADUs as part of it,” he said.

Developers may seek small homes of about 1,000 square feet as attractive targets for demolition, Zenczak said.

“I think what we’re going to see is we’re going to see small cottages get gobbled up by developers and demoed,” he said. “We’re going to find a lot of these mid-block little cottages, and I think those are going to get demoed and they’ll build duplexes.”

Some large houses in the range of 4,000 square feet could be converted into triplexes, Zenczak said.

Portland is expected to grow by about 123,000 households by 2035, according to the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability.

“Everybody’s trying to pack into this place,” Zenczak said. “It’s either we go out, or we go in. Portland is more inclusive and people are socially wanting to live closer together.”

Preferences are changing too.

“As long as we’ve got a good parks system, people don’t really care about large yard spaces,” Zenczak said. “Millennials and urbanites don’t care so much about that. They want something a little more affordable, and (density) is really the only way we can get it.”

The post A new, denser era for housing in Oregon appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

The Metro Council voted unanimously Thursday to approve four urban growth boundary expansions and open up 2,181 acres of land for future development.

The expansions will take place in the cities of Wilsonville, Beaverton, Hillsboro and King City, although Metro councilors and staffers reportedly have concerns over the latter’s ability to guide large developments through to completion. Proposals in the cities call for development of a total of 9,200 new housing units.

Wilsonville was granted a 271-acre expansion that will allow construction of at least 1,325 homes near the city’s northeastern edge, including the large Frog Pond development that has been under way for several years. Hillsboro’s 150-acre expansion near Witch Hazel Road will allow the addition of at least 850 housing units, while Beaverton’s 1,232-acre expansion near the southwest side of Cooper Mountain will allow construction of at least 3,760 housing units.

King City had asked for 528 acres to build a new town center. But because it would be the small city’s first large development in many years, the council encouraged city officials to apply for grants to pay for additional staff, consulting and engineering needed to make the plan happen.

“We try to get better at this every single time, but one of the clear reasons this process is different is because all of us in the region invested time, energy and compassion into defining the urban and rural reserves that that map illustrates,” Metro Councilor Kathryn Harrington stated.

Metro is required by law to ensure the Portland tri-county area has enough buildable land within the UGB to accommodate 20 years of growth. Metro normally reviews the boundary every six years. The 2018 process is different from the 2004 UGB review process, which saw the Metro Council expand the boundary in the Damascus area. That decision ultimately did not lead to significant development, and Damascus ultimately voted to end city incorporation and return land use authority to Clackamas County.

The post Four UGB expansions approved in Portland-metro area appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

A City Club of Portland debate on Metro‘s $652.8 million affordable housing ballot measure quickly grew tense Friday with an attendee’s question that confronted two panelists with accusations of privilege and racism.

Andy Duyck, chairman of Washington County‘s board of commissioners, and Gerard Mildner, a Portland State University professor of real estate finance, represented the ‘no’ side of the debate.

After a relatively staid debate, they quickly found themselves on the defensive during a question-and-answer session. Duyck had earlier said voters should “do no harm” to property taxpayers by rejecting the bond. Moderator Karol Collymore, reading aloud written questions from attendees, posed a pointed query.

“Hearing two white men discuss the concept of ‘do no harm’ to those burdened by this bond financially sounds like privilege and supremacy,” Collymore said. “How can we trust your opinion as a ‘no’ vote when it feels so rooted in racism?”

Duyck answered, “If you can play the race card, I guess I can’t win. Sorry, wrong color skin. I’m going to pass on that one.”

That led Collymore to follow up, objecting to Duyck’s use of “race card.”

“As a point of privilege, because I have this microphone, the race card isn’t a thing, and I think you should probably think about stopping saying that because we really don’t have cards to play,” she said.

The barbed exchange illustrated the intersection between race and public policy, and that race is never far from discussions of affordable housing, homelessness and taxation.

Metro’s bond will appear on Nov. 6 ballots alongside a constitutional amendment that would allow public agencies to leverage tax dollars with for-profit and nonprofit developers. Housing advocates have pushed for both measures, saying they would together begin to make a dent in the need for affordable housing.

The ‘yes’ side of the panel debate was represented by Lynn Peterson, president-elect of the Metro Council, and Shannon Singleton, executive director of JOIN – a Portland nonprofit that provides outreach and housing placement to the homeless.

“I think that what we’re hearing today is that there’s actually been no good arguments put forward not to vote for this ballot measure, and in fact, we need to move forward because ‘do nothing’ is not an answer,” Peterson said. “Five dollars a month – we’re hoping folks will make this investment in each other.”

Duyck and Mildner argued the bond would be inefficient and produce too little housing.

“For every person who’s lucky enough to win the lottery of affordable housing, there are nine more who will be hurt by higher taxes and higher rents,” Duyck said.

The ballot measure would raise property tax by 24 cents per $1,000 of assessed value, or approximately $60 a year for an average home. Metro aims to create 3,900 housing units with the money.

City Club’s study committee has recommended a ‘yes’ vote on the measure.

The post Racism looms in debate over tax hike to fund affordable housing appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.

Metro believes four suburban Portland cities should be granted urban growth boundary expansions.

The regional planning agency’s chief operating officer, Martha Bennett, recommends Beaverton, Hillsboro, King City and Wilsonville be allowed to expand their growth boundaries. The changes would open 2,181 acres in the metro area to development.

The recommendation will go to the Metro Council for discussion at a work session on Tuesday. A vote is likely to follow in December.

Metro is flexing its new ability to expand the UGB outside the usual six-year cycle, after the Oregon Legislature last year changed state land use rules.

UGB expansion decisions typically result in appeals to the Land Conservation and Development Commission and district court. Metro spokesman Nick Christensen said he could not recall the previous UGB expansion decision that did not result in an appeal.

Bennett recommended boundary expansions for all four communities that requested them. (Sherwood withdrew an earlier UGB expansion proposal). All four cities demonstrated governance, infrastructure and market factors that will lead to housing development, Bennett stated.

• Beaverton would gain the most land – 1,232 acres able to accommodate an estimated 3,760 homes in the Cooper Mountain area. Bennett wrote Beaverton’s “strong track record for getting housing built in the South Cooper Mountain area is a major reason why I recommend that the council expand the UGB in the Cooper Mountain urban reserve.”

Beaverton planning officials have thoughtfully planned for the area’s topographical features and environmental assets, she wrote.

Bennett recommends the council add the entire Cooper Mountain urban reserve inside the UGB to enable the city to provide infrastructure in a coherent fashion.

Beaverton’s concept plan for the area proposed that approximately 50 percent of the housing be attached single-family or multifamily.

“We’ve always anticipated a pretty broad range of housing types to be provided within the neighborhood,” said Cheryl Twete, Beaverton’s community development director.

Beaverton will perform a study to better understand how the city can attract development of various housing types, Twete said.

City officials are “very excited” by the positive recommendation, and city leaders support all four regional boundary expansions, she said.

“We feel really confident in the value and the case that we’re making for Cooper Mountain urban reserve,” she said.

• Hillsboro’s bid to add 150 acres with 850 homes in the Witch Hazel Village South area was recommended. Hillsboro’s concept plan calls for up to 70 percent of the housing to be multifamily or attached single-family.
• King City earned a recommendation to expand into 528 acres, with 3,000 homes planned, in an area known as Beef Bend South.

Bennett wrote King City “deserved credit” for its ambition to diversify its population and housing options. King City’s concept plan for a town center with 1,000 multifamily units “may be overly optimistic at this time,” but a smaller-scale town center could work, she wrote.

• Wilsonville’s plan to add 271 acres near Advance Road in the Frog Pond area was recommended. The area would host approximately 1,325 housing units.

Wilsonville has a “strong track record getting housing built” in Villebois, Bennett wrote. With Frog Pond, Bennett wrote, “the city is ready to govern and serve this area and there is evidence that market demand is strong.”

Taken as a whole, the UGB expansions would represent opportunity for a modest addition to the Portland-metro area’s housing stock. The four expansions would add a projected 9,235 homes inside the growth boundary.

The relatively small expansion areas reflect how challenging it is to extend roads, sewer and other infrastructure into previously undeveloped areas, Christensen said.

“It’s really expensive and really difficult to build on green fields,” he said. “As long as that remains, you’re only going to see a handful of applications (with each cycle).”

Metro is pushing for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and other forms of less expensive housing.

“Our population’s growing (and) our economy’s growing, so we need to make sure there’s housing for the people who live here,” he said.

The post Metro recommends UGB expansions appeared first on Daily Journal of Commerce.