Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Regional Transit Bond topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Metro weighs $84 million bond to accelerate regional transit projects; Washington County delegates push for TV Highway and 80 Second Avenue funds
Summary
Metro staff presented eight bond-allocation scenarios for a proposed $84 million Regional Flexible Fund Allocation (RFFA) bond. Washington County and local representatives urged concentrating funds on Tualatin Valley Highway and 80 Second Avenue bus rapid transit projects (scenarios 7/9 favored).
Metro staff presented a set of scenarios to the region's technical advisory committee for using up to $84 million in bonding authority to accelerate federally eligible regional projects. The Washington County delegation at the meeting argued that concentrating the bond money on the two bus-rapid-transit projects 'Tualatin Valley Highway and 80 Second Avenue 'would produce the strongest local benefit and reduce the local match required for larger federal funding applications.
What Metro proposed and the local response
Metro initially advanced five candidate projects for bond support: bus rapid transit along 80 Second Avenue; bus rapid transit along Tualatin Valley Highway (TV Highway); the Sunrise Corridor Gateway project in Clackamas County; transit elements of the Burnside Bridge replacement; and a streetcar extension in the Montgomery Park area of Northwest Portland. Metro removed several earlier nominations from further consideration in the current round, including an I-80/5 MAX overcrossing, a Better Bus program nomination and smaller 'last-mile' improvements in several corridors.
Mike McCarthy, city engineer for Tualatin and Washington County TPAC representative, noted the region also received $10,000,000 in reallocated federal funds and that Metro issued a call for already federally funded projects that could absorb the money. Greg Snyder (Hillsboro) and county representatives said they pushed Metro staff for a scenario that splits the full $84 million between the two bus-rapid-transit efforts. As Snyder put it on the record, the practical option would be to “take the full $84,000,000 and split it in half and give $42,000,000 to the East Side, $42,000,000 to the West Side and call it good.” Several delegates signaled support for scenario 7 or scenario 9, which concentrate funding on the two BRT corridors.
Fiscal trade-offs and next steps
Metro staff noted that bonding $84 million would cost roughly $139 million over the repayment term and that paying the debt service would reduce future RFFA distributions for smaller projects. Staff also emphasized that the bond money would fund early phases of larger projects and, by itself, would not complete any of the projects to final construction. TPAC and JPAC (and ultimately elected bodies) will continue to review scenarios; local delegates asked Metro to provide refined scenarios that reflect realistic funding thresholds for each project.
Why it matters: accelerating early-phase funding for major transit corridors can leverage federal grants and reduce local match requirements, but bonding reduces recurring local RFFA allocations for other regional projects.
