Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transit Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews transit priorities and debates Metro bond to accelerate BRT, TriMet coordination
Summary
Washington County officials reviewed the county’s FY2025–27 Transit Development Plan (funded in part by the payroll‑tax created by House Bill 2017) and debated Metro bond scenarios that could accelerate bus rapid transit projects on Tualatin Valley Highway and 80 Second Avenue. Members discussed trade‑offs between concentrating funding on catalytic projects and spreading funds across many projects.
Washington County’s coordinating committee spent significant time on Dec. 11 reviewing the county Transit Development Plan priorities for FY2025–27 and discussing regional funding strategies, including Metro’s redistributed federal funds and a potential bond to speed delivery of large transit projects.
Diami Valentine, Washington County principal transportation planner, framed the priorities and funding mechanism: as she explained, the payroll‑tax created by House Bill 2017 provides a dedicated statewide transit revenue stream administered by ODOT and distributed to TriMet, which then advances local transit improvement plans. "It's an employee payroll tax...and these funds are dedicated to improving public transportation services," Valentine said.
TPAC and Metro staff briefed the committee on two interrelated funding conversations: Metro’s redistribution of unused federal surface transportation block grant funds to high‑performing regions and a call for projects tied to a potential bond. Mike McCarthy, TPAC presenter, raised the bond framing: "what if the region bonded against some of the future revenue to try to build some real transformative projects," and listed two projects that ranked highest in staff evaluations — bus rapid transit on Tualatin Valley Highway and along 80 Second Avenue — each potentially receiving roughly $30 million in early bond funding.
Committee members discussed the trade‑offs. Some argued for concentrating funds on catalytic projects that can change service patterns quickly; others cautioned that dividing a limited pool across many projects ('sprinkling') may leave every project underfunded. Concern was also raised about long‑term operational and maintenance commitments associated with BRT infrastructure and vehicles.
Mayors and councilors pressed staff on project readiness, project delivery risk and the effect of inflation. One mayor summed a common concern plainly: "I've never seen a construction project go down in price," noting the cost risk of waiting. Staff responded that the highest‑ranked BRT candidates are at advanced project development stages and that TriMet has committed to minimum operating frequencies for the proposed services, with capital funding discussed separate from operating commitments.
Speakers also discussed timelines: staff described a project development phase through approximately 2028 with construction work following later in the 2028–2030 window. Committee members generally expressed support for pursuing catalytic projects while urging careful consideration of long‑term financial impacts, project readiness and federal and regional timelines tied to awarded funds.
Next procedural steps include JPAC/JPAAC review of bond scenarios and continued evaluation of RFFA Step 2 applications by Metro staff; the committee asked county staff to follow up on the bond scenarios and bring more detailed financial analyses to future meetings.
