HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Item - 2019-12-17 - Number 7.3 - Traffic Management Regulations for Kruse Way Corridor 7.3
ro,A 4 COUNCIL REPORT
V �r 0
QREGD‘4
Subject: Traffic Management Regulations for Kruse Way Corridor
Meeting Dates: Staff Member: Scot Siegel, Director
December 17, 2019 (Joint Meeting
with Planning Commission) Department: Planning and Building Services
Report Date: December 3, 2019
Action Required Advisory Board/Commission Recommendation
❑ Motion ❑ Approval
❑ Public Hearing ❑ Denial
❑ Ordinance ❑ None Forwarded
❑ Resolution ❑X Not Applicable
❑ Information Only Comments:
❑X Council Direction
❑ Consent Agenda
Staff Recommendation: N/A
Recommended Language for Motion: N/A
Project/ Issue Relates To:
❑X Council Goals/Priorities ❑Adopted Master Plan(s) ❑Not Applicable
ISSUE BEFORE COUNCIL
The Planning Commission has requested City Council direction on whether to begin work on
amending (or repealing) the code requirements for traffic management in the Kruse Way
Corridor (LOC 50.02.002.2.d).
ACTION
Provide direction on whether to begin work on amending (or repealing) the code requirements
for traffic management in the Kruse Way Corridor (LOC 50.02.002.2.d).
503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city
Page 2
DISCUSSION
This item relates to the City Council priority of business expansion and the city's ongoing efforts
toward regulatory process improvement. Staff has identified technical and legal deficiencies
with this code and initially brought the issue to the Planning Commission for feedback earlier
this year.The Commission requested City Council direction before proceeding.
As summarized in Attachment 1, the traffic management requirements for the Kruse Way
Corridor are redundant or conflict with other existing traffic management regulations in city
code and contain provisions that are not enforceable. In addition, a 2004 feasibility study
prepared by Rick Williams, a national transportation expert, found that formation of a Traffic
Management Association/Task Force for the corridor, as prescribed by LOC 50.02.002.2.d, was
not feasible, and it is staff's opinion that the conditions which led to that conclusion, including a
lack of frequent transit service, have not changed. The feasibility report is provided in
Attachment 2.
The Waluga Neighborhood Association has cautioned against repealing the Kruse Way-specific
traffic management requirements due to concerns about neighborhood cut-through traffic,
primarily on Quarry Road. However, an analysis by Engineering staff found that Quarry Road
traffic has declined or remained generally flat since the economic recovery began in 2012 due
in part to traffic calming devices that the city has installed at the neighborhood's request. The
neighborhood association is also concerned about increases in traffic from developments that
are currently under construction or have been proposed in the corridor. However, traffic from
these developments has been accounted for in prior development permit approvals, and the
existing transportation impact study requirements ensure that traffic impacts from future
development can be mitigated.
ALTERNATIVES
One option is to amend LOC 50.02.002.2.d, removing provisions that are not legally enforceable
and making other changes for consistency with the city's traffic impact study requirements. A
second option is to repeal LOC 50.02.002.2.d and rely on the same requirements for traffic
impact studies and mitigation for development in the Kruse Way Corridor that apply to other
developments in the city. Staff is not asking the Council to choose an option but rather to direct
the Planning Commission and staff to evaluate the options through a public process that
involves the affected neighborhood and business stakeholders.
RECOMMENDATION
Provide direction to the Planning Commission on whether to include amending (or repealing)
LOC 50.02.002.2.d as a goal/work plan item for 2020-2021.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Code Analysis of Traffic Management Requirements for Kruse Way Corridor
2. Kruse Way TMA Feasibility Study
503.635.0215 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.lakeoswego.city
Section 50.02.002 COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, MIXED USE ZONES Page 1 of 1
ATTACHMENT 1
d. Traffic Management Requirements for Specific Locations
The following traffic management requirements apply to all uses in the CR&D, MC, OC, GC and HC zones
located in the Kruse Way Corridor(the area north of Bonita Road, south of Melrose-Carman, west of
Boones Ferry Road and east of 1-5, including the S.W. Quadrant of the Kruse Way/Boones Ferry
intersection and the property located between Kruse Way and Galewood Drive).
i. It is the purpose of these transportation management provisions to require that traffic generation
limitations will be placed on all development in order to assure the functioning of Kruse Way and the
adjacent street system within Service Level"E" at p.m. peaks.
ii. A Traffic Management Program (TMP) shall be submitted with each initial or revised
development application. The program may include, but is not limited to, the following TM
mechanisms: physical site controls on existing traffic, p.m. peak hour exiting traffic limitations, traffic
monitoring, restrictions on the number of parking spaces, flextime, staggered working hours, transit
ridership programs, car and van pools, and similar ride share programs.
iii. At the time of review of any phase of a development, the developer will provide information from
a registered traffic engineer on the then current p.m. peak service level status and volume to capacity
ratio of the intersections affected by the development, and also provide information on the p.m. peak
traffic that will be generated by the proposed phase of the development and the total development
constructed to date.
iv. Owners and employers shall be encouraged to implement TMP's at time of approval. However,
when the traffic at an affected intersection consistently exceeds"C" level of service, the TMP must
be implemented.
v. A Traffic Management Plan Task Force will be formed, including a representative of each major
complex within the Kruse Way Corridor, employers of more than 50 employees, major landowners,
representatives of the City, Tri-Met and any other person identified by the City. The task force will
have authority to review TMP's of members and recommend TM when appropriate.
vi. Notwithstanding the traffic management achievements reached by implementation of the
provisions of subsections 2.d.i through 2.d.v of this section, as development increases along the
Corridor and the traffic flow on the street system, the City may assert its authority to regulate the use
of land to assure all affected property owners, as well as through traffic, are allowed their appropriate
share of the traffic capacity.
vii. Necessary measures will be taken to assure a functioning traffic system at Service Level"E" or
better and may include, but are not limited to:
(1) Green time regulation to facilitate through traffic;
(2) Access fees; or
(3) Fines related to access volumes exceeding allocations
https://www.codepublishing.com/OR/LakeOswego/html/LakeOswego50/LakeOswego50... 11/07/2019
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR KRUSE WAY CORRIDOR
Traffic Management 1. Remove subsection "v", which requires the formation of a Traffic
Requirements for Specific Management Plan Task Force to review traffic management plans prepared
Locations I for employers with 50 or more employees that are located within the Kruse
Way Corridor.
LOC 50.02.002.2.dI
The city does not have the staff resources or capacity to administer a Traffic
Management Task Force that involves multiple employers in the Kruse Way
Corridor. Even if it did,the existing development review process is sufficient for
mitigating the transportation/traffic impacts of development. Mitigation may
include capacity improvements (for one or multiple modes of transportation) or
traffic demand management measures that reduce the number of automobile
trips.There is no need for a separate city task force to review traffic management
plans or traffic mitigation requirements, as it would add another level of review
and further complicate the development review process,yet not have any
enforcement authority.
2. Update Subsections i-iv and vi-vii of LOC 50.02.002.2.d for legal sufficiency
and to reference current traffic management practices.
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality reviews traffic management
measures called "Commute Options."The DEQ requires all companies with 100 or
more employees throughout the Metro region to adopt measures that will reduce
the number of commute trips for improved air quality.These measures reduce
the number of vehicle trips through incentives,which may include transit and
vanpool subsidies, free or pre-tax bus pass purchases, preferential parking for
carpools, compressed workweeks (4/10s),telecommuting, bike/walk incentives,
and other employee benefits.The employers are required to survey their
employees annually, report survey results to DEQ, and provide incentives for
commute options, under OAR 340, Division 242, Employee Commute Options.The
DEQ is responsible for enforcing the rules, which are far more detailed than Lake
Oswego code.There is no need for a city task force to take the place of DEQ in
reviewing traffic management plans for large employers.
Subsections i-iv and vi-vii.The existing code needs to be reviewed for legal
sufficiency. For example,terms like "encourage" and "may assert authority to
regulate" do not belong in city code.These sections also need to be updated to
reflect current practices. For example,the City already regulates green (traffic
signal)times to optimize traffic flow(subsection vii(1)).
ATTACHMENT 2
1Y
..ram ! . \
.-# t •
� - ,^,i
}
r i iiii. _i c.. ,
. . „Ilk , .1 ise t ..6 - -;-- 4.1'.;:..'Mini
1 . 1 eal I 1 .14 fli __ ---- F:':' "
A4 1. ir' I - , . A
..] N • •4 e.
!li
ill {1 r
lit
fMO ,_
# .
•
40
n}
Final Report
�����■ ■ a KRUSE WAY TMA FEASIBILITY STUDY
4.
x
Prepared for
', Regional Travel Options Subcommittee
': ; — `` "-.''.- 1'--.i and
The City of Lake Oswego
Ire
Submitted by
f
4(1vEN, � u� , Melvin Mark Development Company
Rick Williams
Q5 Owen Ronchelli
September 30, 2004
r
r
r
Table of Contents
r •
Acknowledgements i
Executive Summary 1
110
I. Project Background 5
• II. Scope of Work 5
•
•
• I I 1. Glossary of Terms 6
• IV. Why A TMA? 6
•
•
• V. Project Study Area 7
•
•
• VI. Summary of Findings 8
•
• VII. Kruse Way—Now and Projected 10
•
•
• VIII. Common Themes in the Kruse Way Corridor— SWG Process 14
•
• IX. Priority Statements—SWG 17
•
•
• X. Business Climate Survey 18
• •
•
• XI. Summary .25
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
r
It
II
r
0 Acknowledgements
I
I
0 Sponsors of the Assignment
r
• City of Lake Oswego Susan Millhauser
•
•
•
Stakeholder Work Group
•
• CB Richard Ellis Susan Cadell
• Schnitzer Northwest David Elkins
Schnitzer Northwest Danielle Edmunds
.
• Equity Office Laura Gentry
Lake Oswego Transportation Advisory
• Board Donna Jordan
• Cushman Wakefield Lily Ravencraft
• Black & Veatch Corp. Rosalie Scott
•
•
•
•
• The Consultant Team
• Melvin Mark Development Company Rick Williams
•
Melvin Mark Development Company Owen Ronchelli
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
p
p
•
r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
✓ -
✓ I. PROJECT BACKGROUND
This report has been produced to fulfill the requirements of the Kruse Way Transportation
✓ Management Association (TMA) Feasibility Study work scope commissioned by the City of Lake
✓ Oswego. Funding for the study was part of a Portland Area Transportation Management
• Association Funding Grant provided through Metro/TriMet with federal Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) funds. The purpose of the grant was to initiate
• and facilitate a process with the City of Lake Oswego and private sector stakeholders to
. evaluate the feasibility of a Transportation Management Association (TMA) that would serve
businesses within the Kruse Way corridor.
•
• The feasibility study was conducted over a 10-month period that began in October/November
• 2003. All work was conducted with direction and guidance from a Stakeholders Work Group
• (SWG) made up of area property owners/managers, businesses, and concerned citizens.
•
• II. WHY A TMA?
Several TMAs have been established in the Portland area, in Washington County, the Lloyd
District, Swan Island, and the Gresham and Clackamas Regional Centers. Troutdale recently
• completed a feasibility study and has initiated formation of a TMA. TMA's were also established
• in the Columbia Corridor and in the City of Tualatin, both of which have since ceased
• operations.
•
• A decision to move forward with formation of a TMA is grounded in a common belief that
transportation and access challenges are severe enough to merit a collectively managed
• response. When businesses view traffic, congestion, cost of development and efficient land use
• as priority challenges limiting their ability to grow and remain viable; a TMA becomes an
• effective strategy.
•
• III. PROJECT STUDY AREA
•
• The project study area incorporated the commercial business portion of the Kruse Way corridor.
• The study area boundary includes the Centerpointe Business Park to the north (butting up
against Interstate 5 on the west), Bonita Road to the south (also on the west end, adjacent to
• 15); and all properties straddling Meadows Road to the south of Kruse Way. Boones Ferry Road
• represents the eastern edge of the study area, which includes Kruse Way Place to the north and
• the Mercantile Medical Plaza to the south. Figure 1 illustrates the project study area.
•
• According to year 2000 Metro travel zone data, it is estimated that the Kruse Way study area
• employs 6,709 total employees. Approximately 11% of all employment is retail; the remaining
• 89% is in commercial and medical office applications. By the year 2020, the area is projected to
increase its total employee base to 7,628. Of three employment zones in the City of Lake
• Oswego (i.e., Kruse Way, Lake Grove and Lake Oswego Town Center), Kruse Way is and will
• remain the primary area of employment within the City of Lake Oswego.
•
•
•
•
•
•
i
1
r 1V. SUMMARY OF SWG FINDINGS
r
r The SWG engaged in a Go/No Go discussion after 10 months of information gathering. This
r included work sessions, an assessment of challenges and opportunities, review of findings from
the business climate survey, stakeholder interviews and the RTO Sub-committee
111 interview/focus group. With the information the SWG had at hand, the qroup considered four
key questions and came to the conclusion that a TMA would not be feasible at this time,
primarily due to (a) the lack of existing and future transit infrastructure and (b) lack of regional
planning necessary to facilitate successful mode share changes in excess of those targeted in
• Metro's 20 year forecast for the area.' The SWG felt it would be extremely difficult to sustain a
TMA charged with influencing employee mode choices when infrastructure will not be available
• from which to leverage resources and design programs.
•
The four questions the SWG considered are as follows:
A. Did the SWG find consensus that there are transportation and access challenges that
currently exist within the Kruse Way employment center that can, and do, limit Kruse
Way from achieving its vision for becoming a vibrant, vital, diverse commercial
business neighborhood?
• Regarding the current access environment, the SWG concluded that:
•
• ✓ Recent improvements at 15 and Highway 217 have improved access to the area.
✓ The current access system (auto-based) is tight but manageable and parking availability
• is not yet adversely constrained.
•
• ✓ A majority of businesses surveyed did not list transportation or access as one of three
• top challenges to doing business in the corridor (i.e., changing economy, cost of doing
business, and finding/retaining employees).
•
• ✓ The SWG had a higher sense of urgency regarding the access challenges facing the
• corridor than did businesses surveyed.
•
B. Did the SWG support development and implementation of a strategic work plan of
• solutions that would begin to address the challenges identified? Those solutions
include strategies, programs and infrastructure intended to increase access options
•• and raise awareness of options by businesses, employees and customers/visitors to
reduce commute hour automobile trips.
•
The SWG concluded that:
•
✓ Working with area businesses to educate and raise awareness regarding the availability
of existing TriMet, Metro and local programs and services would be beneficial to tenants
of the corridor, but it would not be a program that businesses would sustain financially
• through a TMA. The lack of infrastructure, and planning for such in the future, would
• make increasing access options extremely difficult, if not prohibitive. As such, the
•
•
Metro's Preferred 2020 Non-SOV mode splits for trips to the Kruse Way Corridor are only targeted to transition from
• 28.94%(1994)to 30.08%in 2020. For the most part, regional planning does not see the Kruse Way corridor shifting
• much away from the status quo as regards mode choices.
•
• Kruse Way TMA Feasibility Study Final Report
• Melvin Mark Development Company Page 2
i
success and/or feasibility of a TMA effort would be severely limited given the current and
future vision and planning for the area.
11 C. Does the SWG agree that successful implementation of a strategic transportation
improvements work plan would be best accomplished through a common forum
111 (i.e., TMA, business association) that combines the resources and efforts of the
business community and the City of Lake Oswego working in partnership.
The SWG concluded that:
✓ At this time, the most important need for Kruse Way is development of a strategic
transportation improvement plan that would bring additional commute hour transit
service as well as new linkages and connections to the regional transit system. From
. the SWG's perspective, it is only in this way that a TMA could design and implement
programs that would leverage this type of infrastructure into meaningful commute mode
choice changes.
This effort would need to involve not just the businesses of Kruse Way, but Metro, TriMet
and the City of Lake Oswego. This type of strategic plan would likely counter some
existing decisions regarding regional and local infrastructure planning and delivery for
this area. This effort would also need to establish commute mode share goals and
targets in excess of those currently outlined in Metro's 2020 "Preferred" projections.
Without significant improvements in real options for employees to use alternative modes
and a consensus vision that moves Kruse Way beyond status quo, the ability of a TMA
to successfully coordinate businesses and design/implement TDM programs for
employees is very limited and, likely, unsustainable.
I
D. Does the SWG, acknowledge the role of businesses as members of a future Kruse
Way TMA and its required financial contribution and on-going support?
The SWG concluded that:
I
✓ Given the current access environment, a TMA might be beneficial for a limited period of
time, particularly in efforts to educate businesses and raise awareness of transportation
options now available in the Kruse Way area (i.e., line #38, van/carpool programs,
Flexcar). These options are, however, limited and not of a nature that would motivate
businesses to sustain an organization to promote them.
A TMA could also serve as a forum to discuss issues and needs outlined in B and C,
above. However, unless there is a desire on the part of regional and local agencies to
affect significant transitions in commute choices over a 3 to 7 year period, the work of a
TMA could not be sustained financially by business for its perceived or actual benefit.
✓ 58% of surveyed businesses indicated they would not participate in a process to design,
communicate, and/or share in the cost of transportation options programs.
111
I
I
I
I
I
Kruse Way TMA Feasibility Study Final Report
Melvin Mark Development Company Page 3
a
r
r
V. SUMMARY
The SWG supports and promotes the values upheld by TMAs and believes that a TOM-based
approach to addressing transportation concerns in a business district can be beneficial.
. Thorough discussions with the SWG and interviews with, and surveys of, other Kruse Way
business owners have led to the realization that pursuing a transportation management
• association in Kruse Way would not be feasible and/or sustainable at this time. It was also
• evident from survey responses that, while there are challenges and barriers to doing business in
• Kruse Way now and in the future, transportation is not seen as a significant one when
contrasted to other business concerns. As such, the SWG does not recommend that formation
• of a TMA be pursued.
•
The SWG forwards the following considerations to Metro, the Regional Transportation Options
• sub-committee and the City of Lake Oswego:
•
• • The SWG is very concerned that future employment growth will likely need to rely on the
• single occupant vehicle trip because of lack of other real alternatives. This will have
• potential adverse impacts on access, congestion, efficiency of land use and long-term
• sustainability.
•
• • There is currently a lack of synergy between local and regional transportation planning
• efforts to meaningfully link TDM infrastructure investments and actual employment
• density (current and future).
• • Metro and the City of Lake Oswego need to engage in a more comprehensive analysis
• to determine an accurate baseline for existing employment from which discussions of
• future growth, and therefore how to serve it, can take place.
•
• • Clear mode share goals (all trips and commuter) need to be established for activity
• centers where significant transitions to non-SOV choices are desired. These goals need
• to be clearly and consistently coordinated within local and regional plans. These goals
would then (a) be directly tied into future infrastructure investments and (b) used to
• facilitate TDM efforts through local and regional partnerships with business.
•
• • In relation to Kruse Way, there seems to be a "false center of gravity" related to
• transportation infrastructure (i.e. transit service and trip reduction planning). This issue
• needs further discussion and review, particularly given the potential levels of
employment growth forecast for Kruse Way. Discussions between business interests
• (represented by Kruse Way, Lake Oswego and Lake Grove Town Centers), the City of
• Lake Oswego, Tri-Met and Metro should be conducted to establish clear connections
between data, planning and investment.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• Kruse Way TMA Feasibility Study Final Report
Melvin Mark Development Company Page 4
n
r
0
r
✓ I. PROJECT BACKGROUND
•
• This report has been produced to fulfill the requirements of the Kruse Way Transportation
. Management Association (TMA) Feasibility Study work scope commissioned by the City of Lake
. Oswego. Funding for the study was part of a Portland Area Transportation Management
Association Funding Grant provided through Metro/TriMet with federal Congestion Mitigation
• and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) funds. The purpose of the grant was to initiate
• and facilitate a process with the City of Lake Oswego and private sector stakeholders to
• evaluate the feasibility of a Transportation Management Association (TMA) that would serve
•
businesses within the Kruse Way corridor.
•
• The feasibility study was conducted over a 10-month period that began in October/November
+ 2003. All work was conducted with direction and guidance from a Stakeholders Work Group
(SWG) made up of area property owners/managers, businesses, and concerned citizens.
•
• II. SCOPE OF WORK
•
• The approved work scope for determining the feasibility of a TMA in Kruse Way contained four
• primary elements and a decision. These included:
• Task 1: Project Roll Out
• Initial discussions were held with the City of Lake Oswego and private sector stakeholders
• about TMAs, their purpose and intent and the desirability of proceeding with a feasibility study in
• the Kruse Way corridor. Telephone interviews were conducted with a broad group of area
• employers to gauge local interest level and generate some initial themes pertaining to
• transportation as it affects businesses in Kruse Way.
•
• Task Stakeholder Work Group Process/Identification of Challenges and Issues
• A stakeholders work group was established for the project. The group was comprised of
• property owners/managers, area businesses, interested citizens and the City of Lake Oswego.
The charge of the Stakeholders Work Group's (SWG) was to develop/ascertain common issues,
• themes, challenges and opportunities related to transportation and its near and long-term
• impacts on Kruse Way's business vitality and economic development. The purpose being to
• assess the possible need for, and role of, a TMA in addressing transportation challenges.
•
• Task 3: Expanded Information Gathering
• The SWG developed a business climate survey that was administered to 278
• companies/agencies located in Kruse Way. The survey was intended to further identify
transportation-based themes/issues from a broader range of businesses than those represented
• on the SWG. The SWG also heard presentations from TriMet on current and future service
• planning, from the City of Lake Oswego on local transportation planning efforts and from the
• Westside Transportation Alliance (WTA) on the realities of running a suburban TMA. The
consultant team also conducted an interview/focus group with Metro's Regional Transportation
• Options (RTO) Subcommittee and (as stated above) conducted phone interviews with non-SWG
stakeholders.
• Task 4: Issue Identification and Development of Consensus Solutions
• The SWG conducted a series of work sessions designed to identify and assess transportation
• challenges and solutions, particularly those that would involve implementation of, and
• participation in, transportation demand management programs and strategies.
•
Kruse Way TMA Feasibility Study Final Report
• Melvin Mark Development Company Page 5
r
p
p
p
p
p
Task 5: Go/No Go Decision
0 The consultant team held two work sessions with the SWG to determine the perceived feasibility
0 of, and the desirability for, formation of a Transportation Management Association to coordinate
and implement TDM programs and strategies in Kruse Way.
III. GLOSSARY OF TERMS
This section was included to help define some of the more commonly used acronyms in this
document and the broader field of transportation demand management.
0
Alternative
0 Modes Any transportation mode other than single occupant vehicle.
• CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality, a federal grant program providing
9 funding for transportation demand management programs and strategies
CTR Commute Trip Reduction Law — Washington's equivalent to Oregon's ECO
0 Rule.
ECO Rule Employee Commute Options Rule — Oregon State statute requiring commute
trip reductions for businesses with more than 50 employees.
Mode Share A measure of the percentage of all trips made by a specific transportation
type. For instance, if 10 out of 100 employees arrive to work via transit, the
9 mode share for transit at that work site would be 10%.
RTO Regional Travel Options — a Metro staffed subcommittee charged with
monitoring and developing programs pertaining to transportation demand
management within the Portland metropolitan area.
SOV Single Occupant Vehicle—SOVs are drive alone trips in a motor vehicle
SWG Stakeholders' Work Group — the Kruse Way TMA Feasibility Study was
overseen by a representative group of property owners, businesses, and
citizens that met in a committee format.
9 TDM Transportation Demand Management — this term is generally applied to
programs and strategies that result in reductions in travel by single occupant
vehicles and promote use of alternative forms of transportation (i.e., transit,
rideshare, bike/walk, alternative work schedules, etc.).
•
TMA Transportation Management Association —a business association devoted to
implementing TDM measures from a business-based perspective.
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled — a means of measuring impacts that TDM programs
have on use of single occupant vehicle travel.
IV. WHY A TMA?
0 Several TMAs have been established in the Portland area, in Washington County, the Lloyd
District, Swan Island, and the Gresham and Clackamas Regional Centers. Troutdale recently
completed a feasibility study and has initiated formation of a TMA. TMA's were also established
0
p
Kruse Way TMA Feasibility Study Final Report
Melvin Mark Development Company Page 6
in the Columbia Corridor and in the City of Tualatin, both of which have since ceased
operations.
In most cases, TMAs have formed as stakeholders in a given area come to recognize common
• concerns regarding transportation and access and its impact on business operations. These
areas tend to have businesses with similar access problems, and bringing together stakeholders
in a common forum facilitates coordination, visioning, program design and consensus building.
• Overall, the formation of a TMA is dependent on a perceived and consensus based need of the
• district. This need can take two forms:
1. Regulatory. Businesses and stakeholders in a given area create a forum for responding
. to/complying with regulation(s).2 In general, this type of TMA is targeted toward large
. employers.
2. Economic Development.ent. Businesses and stakeholders perceive transportation and
✓ access as key factors facilitating/constraining near and long-term economic growth of a
business area.3
•
• It should be noted that a TMA could be a blend of both (1) and (2) above.
f In short, the decision to move forward with formation of a TMA is grounded in a common belief
+ that transportation and access challenges are severe enough to merit a collectively managed
response. When businesses view traffic, congestion, cost of development and efficient land use
• as priority challenges limiting their ability to grow and remain viable; a TMA becomes an
• effective strategy.
•
• V. PROJECT STUDY AREA
•
• The project study area incorporates the commercial business portion of the Kruse Way corridor.
• The study area boundary encompasses the Centerpointe Business Park to the north (butting up
against Interstate 5 on the west), Bonita Road to the south (also on the west end, adjacent to
• 15); and all properties straddling Meadows Road to the south of Kruse Way. Boones Ferry Road
• represents the eastern edge of the study area, which includes Kruse Way Place to the north and
• the Mercantile Medical Plaza to the south. Figure 1 illustrates the project study area.
•
• According to year 2000 Metro travel zone data, it is estimated that the Kruse Way study area
• employs 6,709 total employees. Approximately 11% of all employment is retail; the remaining
89% is in commercial and medical office applications. By the year 2020, the area is projected to
•• increase its total employee base to 7,628. Of three employment zones in the City of Lake
Oswego (i.e., Kruse Way, Lake Grove and Lake Oswego Town Center), Kruse Way is and will
• remain the primary area of employment within the City of Lake Oswego.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• 2 In Southern California,TMA's formed in response to the Federal Clean Air Act. In Washington,several TMA's
formed in the Puget Sound Area in response to the Commuter Trip Reduction(CTR)law. In Oregon,the Employee
Commute Options(ECO)Rule served as a basis for TMAs such as the WTA and Tualatin TMA to form.
• 3 This was the driving factor leading to the development of the Lloyd District and Gresham Regional Center TMAs.
•
Kruse Way TMA Feasibility Study Final Report
• Melvin Mark Development Company Page 7
M
0
0
I
I
• Figure 1
Project Study Area
♦ram ♦♦1110 OP. ♦ l Oil
► . ♦ i ::i1N♦ n! r ■ii.ii1iri1.
� ♦ 1. I i rrr■ r•
I♦ mil,, illitt4 /i�1r,,
� iikig{ti y e S Ilrto.4i;-1.'�.l�I 4gip II■■■%i 1.■� 11,40 s. ■..4a • 4 ♦r♦ ,.I ,,,,is,.,,■i ►42r.r Irrr■Ita►oR40►t.■■■■rr� nta♦ ♦1 . I4�{♦ �'�u IgliI e t t■■rrr■■ 1i �/allinrr R.
�r� ►Il P.�Aj"11 R Qt1V Iauy♦+,r I kW:fill■arrrj. a Ail
1 Ia• # V/liti.
• _ ,i!i ♦r.r�� 4 rs♦VO;4.� %err 1210 •
12.V r►�\i 1:Ail �Qf y'ln •
so*. � *��C r rlyr■1 upoll■ t .•417. . rvesa4•:•
411....... .. $46•
le
Al, 14rrrr+
iiiii6...„iirmorfaiiikl -- , li..::
• 4 ( .41Pnal' *VI;
r.
-a lig � ► 3 . to
MI
... 07111j k - F% .. r41. 1111111r"
l 6
• 4.=°�rl)(mVINIlirliiii ♦►/ti �O'1 pi11114 '�j�Ti rr=■rr aI/
r ti
• � I rrr T nfll!/.rn:a II 1�1rpq 40-1—_,11.101hatigi� �ogi_ 1�._•.,rrnrn�c(♦IU/■rr
talon.=mum
• Kruse W Transportation Management i♦♦i♦•••v�u�iii raInlllmi1 i!!r 41111� /'11 ii '
Way P ►♦♦♦♦♦ ...1111111111�i�_� /E II
t__ rr Eira t
� Association(TMA)Feasibility Study ,p♦♦ � � �11���11�'�•i:Inman, r{ �'��
• =Ir `.rr!■r rLa-
�"'�¢ Proposed TMA Project Area met'� ��r<< ���
� R
• N �.,t�Amits II ■ •40 .T z
anficiiii
• r - � ■ 41.0 VI�� � ��� �11 Pit ii I I lit..P:' $1 �IIIIIIL
i r
• Feet 11111111iii(i�:� l s ,,�* %‘1% 1'`t♦ttl
HrNM 02/11104,SC.WC.ry WLake Owe
•
• VI. SUMMARY OF SWG FINDINGS
•
• The SWG engaged in a Go/No Go discussion after 10 months of information gathering. This
included work sessions, an assessment of challenges and opportunities, review of findings from
• the business climate survey, stakeholder interviews and the RTO Sub-committee
• interview/focus group. With the information the SWG had at hand, the group considered four
key questions and came to the conclusion that a TMA would not be feasible at this time,
• primarily due to (a) the lack of existing and future transit infrastructure and (b) lack of regional
• planning necessary to facilitate successful mode share changes in excess of those targeted in
• Metro's 20 year forecast for the area.4 The SWG felt it would be extremely difficult to sustain a
• TMA charged with influencing employee mode choices when infrastructure will not be available
• from which to leverage resources and design programs.
• The four questions the SWG considered are as follows:
•
A. Did the SWG find consensus that there are transportation and access challenges that
• currently exist within the Kruse Way employment center that can, and do, limit Kruse
• Way from achieving its vision for becoming a vibrant, vital, diverse commercial
• business neighborhood?
• 4 Metro's Preferred 2020 Non-SOV mode splits for trips to the Kruse Way Corridor are only targeted to transition from
• 28.94%(1994)to 30.08%in 2020. For the most part, regional planning does not see the Kruse Way corridor shifting
• much away from the status quo as regards mode choices.
•
• Kruse Way TMA Feasibility Study Final Report
• Melvin Mark Development Company Page 8
r
I
I
I
r
Regarding the current access environment, the SWG concluded that:
✓ Recent improvements at 15 and Highway 217 have improved access to the area.
✓ The current access system (auto-based) is tight but manageable and parking availability
is not yet adversely constrained.
✓ A majority of businesses surveyed did not list transportation or access as one of three
top challenges to doing business in the corridor (i.e., changing economy, cost of doing
business, and finding/retaining employees).
r
✓ The SWG had a higher sense of urgency regarding the access challenges facing the
corridor than did businesses surveyed.
B. Did the SWG support development and implementation of a strategic work plan of
solutions that would begin to address the challenges identified? Those solutions
include strategies, programs and infrastructure intended to increase access options
and raise awareness of options by businesses, employees and customers/visitors to
reduce commute hour automobile trips.
The SWG concluded that:
✓ Working with area businesses to educate and raise awareness regarding the availability
•
of existing TriMet, Metro and local programs and services would be beneficial to tenants
of the corridor, but it would not be a program that businesses would sustain financially
through a TMA. The lack of infrastructure, and planning for such in the future, would
make increasing access options extremely difficult, if not prohibitive. As such, the
success and/or feasibility of a TMA effort would be severely limited given the current and
future vision and planning for the area.
C. Does the SWG agree that successful implementation of a strategic transportation
improvements work plan would be best accomplished through a common forum (i.e.,
TMA, business association) that combines the resources and efforts of the business
community and the City of Lake Oswego working in partnership.
I
The SWG concluded that:
✓ At this time, the most important need for Kruse Way is development of a strategic
transportation improvement plan that would bring additional commute hour transit
' service as well as new linkages and connections to the regional transit system. From
the SWG's perspective, it is only in this way that a TMA could design and implement
programs that would leverage this type of infrastructure into meaningful commute mode
choice changes.
I
This effort would need to involve not just the businesses of Kruse Way, but Metro, TriMet
and the City of Lake Oswego. This type of strategic plan would likely counter some
existing decisions regarding regional and local infrastructure planning and delivery for
this area. This effort would also need to establish commute mode share goals and
targets in excess of those currently outlined in Metro's 2020 "Preferred" projections.
Without significant improvements in real options for employees to use alternative modes
and a consensus vision that moves Kruse Way beyond status quo, the ability of a TMA
to successfully coordinate businesses and design/implement TDM programs for
employees is very limited and, likely, unsustainable.
I
r Kruse Way TMA Feasibility Study Final Report
Melvin Mark Development Company Page 9
a
•
•
•
•
•
• D. Does the SWG acknowledge the role of businesses as members of a future Kruse
• Way TMA and its required financial contribution and on-going support?
•
The SWG concluded that:
• 1 Given the current access environment, a TMA might be beneficial for a limited period of
• time, particularly in efforts to educate businesses and raise awareness of transportation
• options now available in the Kruse Way area (i.e., line #38, van/carpool programs,
• Flexcar). These options are, however, limited and not of a nature that would motivate
• businesses to sustain an organization to promote them.
•
A TMA could also serve as a forum to discuss issues and needs outlined in B and C,
+ above. However, unless there is a desire on the part of regional and local agencies to
• affect significant transitions in commute choices over a 3 to 7 year period, the work of a
TMA could not be sustained financially by business for its perceived or actual benefit.
•
• ✓ 58% of surveyed businesses indicated they would not participate in a process to design,
• communicate, and/or share in the cost of transportation options programs.
•
• VII. KRUSE WAY— NOW AND PROJECTED
• A. Employment
•
• According to Metro's RTP8.1 HIA Matrix, the Kruse Way employment corridor is not expected to
• significantly increase in employment over the next 15 to 20 years. Current employment is
• estimated by Metro to be 6,709 employees.5 Employment in 2020 is expected to grow to 7,628,
• a growth rate of less 1.0% annually. When contrasted to two nearby employment centers (i.e.
Downtown Lake Oswego and Lake Grove Town Center), Kruse Way is higher in employment
now and will remain so into the future. According to the Metro estimates, overall employment
• within the three centers will only increase 3,870 jobs over the next 15 years, or about 1.7%annually. Table 1 summarizes current and future employment and contrasts the three
• employment areas.
•
Table 1
• Current & Future Employment Assumptions •
Metro 2000 Total %of Three 2020 Total %of Three
Travel Area Description Employment Area Total EmpIoyment Area Total
Pone Employment Employment
• 323 Kruse Way: Carman to 15 6,709 - 44% 7,628 40%
• 4 329 Lake Grove Town Center 4,832 32% - 6,293 33%
• 327 Lake Oswego Town 3,635 24% 5,125 27%
• Center {
Total 15,176 f 100% 19,046 100%
• ti''ire:MetrnL#rI' illl:
I
• The Kruse Way SWG was troubled by the Metro employment forecasts for a couple of reasons.
• First, current employment estimates by property owners participating on the SWG put existing
employment at approximately 7,200— 8,000, based on existing leases for properties in the area.
4 5 This is for Travel Zone 323,which is best representative of the TMA feasibility study zone.
f
• Kruse Way TMA Feasibility Study Final Report
Melvin Mark Development Company Page 10
•
•
•
• This is clearly higher than Metro's year 2000 estimate and approaches or exceeds the 2020
• estimate for Kruse Way. Secondly, though the number of vacant development pads is limited,
• those that are available can provide employment capacity for approximately 2,000 additional
• employees. This would put potential total employment in the range of 10,000 employees
without any efficiency above status quo in how development takes place in Kruse Way.
• If the SWG takes Metro's RTP8.1 HIA Matrix employment estimates at face value, then little in
f, the way of TDM infrastructure improvement is necessary to accommodate future employment
• growth. In other words, actions necessary to accommodate a little over 900 jobs over 15 years
• would be minimal. In fact, the impact of 900 jobs could likely be absorbed into existing
• infrastructure. Of course, higher levels of employment growth in this area will likely result in
• increasing constraints on the access system, particularly if single occupant vehicle trips
continue to predominate. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a high level of confidence in
'r data provided to the SWG regarding actual employment in the area, and how future
• employment will be distributed.
•
• For these reasons, the SWG recommends that Metro and the City of Lake Oswego engage in a
• more comprehensive analysis to determine an accurate baseline for existing employment from
• which discussions of future growth, and therefore how to serve it, can take place.
• B. Mode Share
•
• 1. Trips
•
• Modeling data supplied by Metro provides insight into current and forecast mode share targets
• for the Kruse Way corridor. The Metro figures show mode share data from 1994 and postulate
a "2020 Preferred" target for total person trip mode splits in Kruse Way. Overall, the data
• forecasts a breakout of single occupant vehicle (SOV) and non-SOV person trips to the corridor
• over time. Table 2 summarizes the Metro forecasts for the Kruse Way corridor.
• As Table 2 indicates, only a minor transition from SOV to non-SOV is expected to occur in the
• coming decades. Non-SOV trips will increase from 28.94% of all person trips to approximately
« 30.06% in 2020, an average of about 0.056% a year over 20 years. Viewed a different way,
• 1994 has 96.92% of all person trips arriving to the Kruse Way corridor by car (SOV and shared
ride). 2020 Preferred has 94.35% of person trips coming by car. This is not a significant
• transition from status quo.
• Table 2
• Mode Choices— 1994 to 2020
• 1994 2020 Preferred
• �.s✓ie 'i" 'eF,r% f+.9. » f mey� �N'+wf !Y
okiliis
• Bike 87 0.52% Bike 157 0.64%
• Walk 248 1.47% Walk 394 1.60%
• Transit 184 1.09% Transit 843 3.42%
• Shared Ride 4,362 25.88% Shared Ride 6,026 24.43%
• Drive Alone 11,984 71.06% Drive Alone 17,244 69.92%
• TOTAL 16,865 100% TOTAL 24,644 100%
• °�' di 'Vn rcent 28.94% _Y'4 o 4:914 en 30.06%
• ,ra.r 3. � . ,r , .
Source:Metro
•
•
•
• Kruse Way TMA Feasibility Study Final Report
• Melvin Mark Development Company Page 11
II
,r
•
•
•
•
• Interestingly, the City of Lake Oswego's Goal 12 Comprehensive Plan adopts a non-SOV
• alternative transportation target of 45%for the Kruse Way Employment Center. This is a much
• more aggressive target and consistent with Metro's Urban Growth Management Functional
• Plan. Though the City's target is a 2040 projection, it is not clear how the Metro 2020
• Preferred Model correlates with the Comprehensive Plan.6 Also, the Comprehensive Plan
+ target forecasts a single non-SOV outcome (i.e., 45%) and does not break out the modes of
• access (i.e., transit, bike, walk, etc.) like the 2020 Preferred Model. Nonetheless, the adopted
City goal is very aggressive when contrasted to Metro's 2020 Preferred Model and would
• suggest a transportation infrastructure investment plan and strategy consistent with the target
• (see, C. Expectation of/Planning for Infrastructure, below). In short, as with employment data
• described above, there is not a clear interface or connection between regional and City
• models.
•
• The SWG supports the Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan, Title 6, which states
"transportation mode split will be used as an important factor in assessing transportation system
improvements?' The SWG would recommend that the City and Metro more clearly correlate
• regional modeling and planning efforts with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan goal. Given
• the data provided thus far, the SWG believes that efforts to leverage private investments in TDM
would not be supported by meaningful transportation system improvements in the Kruse Way
• area that would result in significant transitions from status quo.
•
• 2. Mode choice and employment
• If the mode choice data is compared to Metro's RTP8.1 HIA Matrix employment data it
• appears that the 2020 Preferred alternative assumes that only 187 new transit commute trips,
• 14 bike commute trips and 23 walk commute trips are expected to transition to the district over
• approximately 20 years. Table 3, below, illustrates this transition.8
• Table 3
• Mode Changes Necessary To Achieve Established Goals
• ' 4`rO Kruse iltay l m)l"coyees z ,, _ 6709
• fiCruse'Tay iploy�ees 7628
• 2004 2004 2020 2020 Net cyo
• Mode Mode
• Mode Share(1) Employees Share(2) Employees Change(3) Change
• Dtive,Alone' ` 71.06% 4,767 69.92%l0. , � .
• 5��.3 566 12��, ���;,
• Rideshare 25.88% 1,736 24.43% 1,864 ; � 128 7%
• Bike 0.52% 35 0.64% 49 14', 40%
Walk 1.5% 99 1.60% 122 23%•
Transit 1.1% 73 3.42% 260 ` .167� 256%
• TOTAL 100% 6,710 100% 7,628 918
• (1)Derived from Round 3 Modeling Detailed Mode Share Summaries-Metro:Assumes 2004 modes=1994 modes
• (2)Derived from Round 3 Modeling Detailed Mode Share Summaries-Metro
• (3)#of employees who would have to change their existing mode choice to a non-SOV mode(shaded area).
• NOTE:#of potential new parking stalls need to accommodate targeted SOV employee growth=566
•
• 6 The two plans together suggest the bulk of TDM improvements are planned to take place between 2020 and 2040.
• 'Metro Urban Growth Management Functional Plan,Title 6, Regional Accessibility,Section 3.07.640.
8 We did not create a table based on the City Comprehensive Plan goal of 45%non-SOV given that the employment
• forecast is for 2020 and the Comprehensive Plan Goal is 2040.
•
• Kruse Way TMA Feasibility Study Final Report
• Melvin Mark Development Company Page 12
a
•
•
•
•
•
• When evaluating a Go/No Go decision on the feasibility of a TMA, stakeholders need to
• determine the degree to which transitioning to expected or "preferred" regional goals will
• impact the status quo. If the goal is minimal, strategies are less aggressive (or possibly
• unnecessary). If the goal is significant, then programs and strategies are aggressive and,
• hopefully, supported by regional planning and infrastructural investment.9 TMA's are most
successful when they are able to leverage existing, and anticipate future, regional and local
• TDM infrastructure (i.e., transit systems, bike lanes, pedestrian systems) into programs that
• businesses can invest and participate.
•
• C. Expectation of/Planninq for Infrastructure
•
• The success of a TMA comes with a common identification of access challenges that limit
business vitality and growth and the ability to leverage business investment/participation in
• programs that influence employee commute choices. Success also comes with corollary
• public investments in transportation improvements that would complement private sector
efforts.
•
• In this regard, the SWG was interested in determining the level of expectation that a future
• TMA would have for being able to affect a transition of mode choices to transit, bike or walking
• based on anticipated or planned transportations improvements in the Kruse Way area.
•
• 1. Transit
•
• According to TriMet's recently developed Transit Investment Plan, few (if any) of the identified
• investments will affect access for the Kruse Way corridor. The six outlined improvements for
• the Lake Oswego area include:1°
• 1) Streetcar service from South Waterfront to Lake Oswego
• 2) New downtown transit facilities and park and ride
• 3) Frequent service on Line 35-Macadam connecting West Linn, Oregon City and Portland
• 4) Extension of Line 44-Capitol Highway along Lower Boones Ferry Road to Tualatin
• 5) Addressing low-performing service along Line 37-Lake Grove
• 6) Local connections by rerouting Line 38 along SW Bonita Road (Tigard)
•
• Some longer-term, Kruse Way specific, planning efforts have taken place at the local level.
The City of Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan, Goal 12 has called for locating a transit center
and park and ride west of Kruse Oaks Drive, east of Bangy Road, south of Kruse Way and
north of Meadows Road". The transit center is noted as being developed in conjunction with
reroutes to TriMet bus lines and is targeted for in an 11-20 year time frame.
•
• 2. Bikes/Pedestrians
A few infrastructure projects supporting alternative modes have been completed in the Kruse
• Way corridor according the City's Engineering Department. Completed projects include:
• 9 For instance,the adopted transit commute mode split target is intended to move the Lloyd District from 10%(1994)
• to 42%(2015). This has led to an aggressive TDM effort in this business center.
• 10 Interestingly, the 2020 Preferred non-SOV mode split for Downtown Lake Oswego drops slightly from 31.92%
• (1994)to 31.46%(2020).
1 Lake Oswego Comprehensive Plan(December 1994, with 1997 amendments to Goal 12, Transportation for TPR
• compliance)Goal 12:Transportation and the Lake Oswego Transportation System Plan(June 1997),Project TR-3.
•
• Kruse Way TMA Feasibility Study Final Report
• Melvin Mark Development Company Page 13
•
•
•
•
•
• • Meadows Road planted medians, new sidewalk on the south side (an existing sidewalk is on
• the north side) and intersection improvements/signals, one at Kruse Oaks, one at Kruse
• Meadows, and the Carman/Meadows Roundabout.
• • Bike lanes were added along Bangy Road.
• • Bus pullouts were added to Kruse Oaks in the northbound direction.
IP
Multi-use paths currently exist on the north and south sides of Kruse Way from Bangy Road
• east to Boone Ferry Road. Sidewalks are proposed for Carman Drive, Bonita Road and
Westlake Dr. Bike lanes are proposed for Bonita and Bangy Roads and Carman Dr., and an
• extension of the Kruse Way multi-use path is planned to extend west.of Bangy Road across
• Interstate 5 to Highway 217.12 . There does not appear to be momentum for implementation of
• these proposed projects for the near term.
•
• Based on the information presented above, it was not clear to the SWG that Kruse Way is an
area that has been identified by the region, and through regional planning, to significantly
•• transition commute trips from SOV to non-SOV, thereby needing a TMA. Also, if transitioning
commute trips is a priority goal, there is not a consensus target for future growth, supported by
• regional infrastructure investment that supports changes from the status quo.
•
• VIII. COMMON THEMES IN THE KRUSE WAY CORRIDOR—SWG PROCESS
•
• The project work scope called for strong stakeholder input into the development of The Kruse
• Way TMA Feasibility Study. Stakeholder input is a critical component of this work and the
• entire project. Understanding stakeholder concerns and ideas for Kruse Way is vital because
• these stakeholders are the users of the transportation system on a daily basis. Also, their
investment and ownership within the office/retail community would ultimately be supported
• through the work and programs of any future Kruse Way TMA organization.
•
• Tasks 2, 3 and 4 of the work scope called for meetings, interviews and contacts with area
• stakeholders within the TMA study area boundary who would be affected by transportation and
• access issues in both the near and long-term. The intent of these meetings and interviews was
to identify common themes and concerns related to the economic vitality of the corridor and•
• those themes/concerns that are affected by transportation. As noted above, this process
involved a high level of stakeholder input, which included:
•
• • 10 meetings/work sessions with the SWG
• • A business climate survey of 278 area businesses (with a 23(3/0 response rate)
• • Presentations from TriMet, City of Lake Oswego and the Western Transportation Alliance
• • One-on-one interviews with area stakeholders
• • Interview/focus group with Metro's Regional Transportation Options (RTO) Sub-committee
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
• To fully develop a TMA feasibility strategy, it was first necessary to clearly understand the
• constraints that limit existing businesses from remaining viable and growing as well as
• constraints that would limit Kruse Way's ability to attract new businesses and economic growth.
• Similarly, successful programs/strategies that are contributing to the area's health needed to be
•
• 12 These improvements are referenced in Goal 12 of Lake Oswego's Comprehensive Plan).
•
•
• Kruse Way TMA Feasibility Study Final Report
Melvin Mark Development Company Page 14
a
•
•
•
•
•
• understood to ensure that they are ultimately supported and enhanced by new access
• strategies that could be developed through a TMA.
•
• Over the course of the study process, the SWG considered and discussed challenges to doing
business and opportunities that encourage and support business. The SWG's discussion and
conclusions are summarized below.
•
• A. Challenges to Doing Business
•
• The context of this discussion centered on answering the question: in the next 5 years, what
• are the greatest challenges for my business to remain viable, grow and prosper?"
• Overall, SWG input can be summarized into four categories or themes. They included:
• 1. Constrained growth environment
• Kruse Way enjoys a particularly high occupancy rate and property owner/managers fetch
• higher rents than most any other area of the region, including Downtown Portland. Given
• that the vast majority of developable land has been built out with few remaining
• development opportunities available, a key challenge will be accommodating the demand for
• expansion and new commercial development in the corridor. The SWG saw transitioning
• more employees into alternative modes as an important mechanism for maximizing land use
• and reducing the cost necessary to develop parking at status quo levels.
• 2. General accessibility
• Strong demands for office space in the area creates a congested environment during the
• peak commute hours. Stakeholders noted the perpetual traffic congestion along Highway
• 217 in the northbound direction. Kruse Way is home to similar business types,
• predominantly Class A commercial offices with strikingly similar hours of operation. This
• similarity creates a morning and evening traffic convergence on area roadways, particularly
Meadows Road and Kruse Way.
• Internal congestion has led to delays for customers/employees as they attempt to travel
• within the corridor. Though these conditions exist, stakeholders viewed it as a moderate to
• growing problem, rather than a significant one. A recently completed improvement to the
• Highway 217 and Interstate 5 interchange has greatly increased traffic flows through what
• was once a significantly congested intersection and may help explain a greater tolerance for
• the congestion that does occur. Nonetheless, SWG members agree that continued reliance
on the single occupant vehicle as the primary mode of commuter access will exacerbate
•
• access problems over time.
• 3. Existing transit service/regional connections
• Despite Kruse Way's employment numbers, the area lacks adequate transit options and
• meaningful connections to the regional system. The transit route that does exist, the #38,
• predominantly serves local residents working in Downtown Portland rather than regional
• employees working in Kruse Way.
• Kruse Way has twice the number of employees of Downtown Lake Oswego.13 However,
• downtown enjoys several more transit options (#35 Macadam, #36 South Shore, #37 Lake
•
• 13 According to estimated 2000 employment numbers provided by Metro, Kruse Way had 6,700 employees, whereas
• Lake Oswego Town Center had 3,600. It was further noted, that the percentage distribution of future employment
growth in the area(i.e., Kruse Way at 45%, Lake Grove at 29% and Lake Oswego TC at 26%) would remain about
• the same through 2025.
•
• Kruse Way TMA Feasibility Study Final Report
• Melvin Mark Development Company Page 15
•
•
•
•
•
•
• Grove and #78 Beaverton/Lake Oswego) when contrasted to Kruse Way's one bus line
• (#38: Boones Ferry Road). This lack of service does not foster a transit-friendly
• environment or enough coverage and convenience whereby employees could reasonably
• consider using transit as an option (even if their employer purchased their pass for them).
• This presents a significant challenge for existing businesses in the corridor, as well as a
• longer-term challenge for a potential TMA when parking becomes scarcer and traffic
congestion becomes more pronounced.
•
• 4. Long-term regional planning
• According to TriMet's Transit Investment Plan, Kruse Way has little to look forward to in
• terms of transit improvements in the coming years. The emphasis for future transit
• improvements is directed toward Downtown Lake Oswego.14 The SWG labeled this
• situation as the "false center of gravity," whereby infrastructure investments that are
• conducive to TDM solutions are not following employment. At present, the focus of TDM
related transportation investment is in areas forecast to achieve lower employment levels
• than Kruse Way.
•
• In short, it appears the challenge of continued growth and accessibility in Kruse Way are further
• constrained by the challenge of transit service and transit planning. The SWG was clear in their
• recognition of the interrelatedness of these four challenges that the corridor faces both near and
• long-term.
B. Opportunities/Assets
f
• The SWG was asked to list and discuss the programs, strategies, and/or elements of the Kruse
• Way corridor that are `working" by contributing to its success (i.e., supporting business and
• promoting economic development). Overall, stakeholder input can be summarized into three
• categories. They are:
1. Parking availability
• Stakeholders felt that an abundance of parking was an asset for the Kruse Way business
• community. Having available parking for employees, customers and visitors is a desirable
• attribute for existing and prospective tenants. Not only its availability, but also how the
• parking is arranged on-site is seen as an asset. Stakeholders noted that many businesses
• seek out `campus' style business parks, where the office building is set back from the street,
• often situated in the middle of the property and surrounded by parking (surface or
structured) on all sides. While posing more of a challenge for convenient, front-door transit
•• service, campus style commercial properties with higher parking ratios are in high demand
in the Kruse Way corridor and will continue to be.
•
• 2. Location and design
• While traffic congestion was seen as a growing challenge for the Kruse Way area, its close
• proximity to Interstate 5 and Highway 217 is seen as an opportunity. These major
• transportation arteries are important for employees getting to work and provide convenient
• access for clients and customers coming to Kruse Way. Stakeholders also described the
• 'open feel' of Kruse Way as an asset. The corridor has wide boulevards surrounded by lush
• 14 As stated earlier,the six outlined improvements for the Lake Oswego area are as follows: 1)Streetcar service from
• South Waterfront to Lake Oswego,2)New downtown transit facilities and park and ride,3)Frequent service on Line
• 35-Macadam connecting West Linn,Oregon City and Portland,4) Extension of Line 44-Capitol Highway along Lower
Boones Ferry Road to Tualatin,5)Addressing low-performing service along Line 37-Lake Grove,6)Local
• connections by rerouting Line 38 along SW Bonita Road.
•
• Kruse Way TMA Feasibility Study Final Report
• Melvin Mark Development Company Page 16
a
•
M
•
•
•
• landscaping and spacious, well-designed buildings. The office buildings are situated within
• proximate distance of executive housing, which property managers have noted as important
• criteria for prospective businesses in locating their offices.
•• 3. Lower Operating Costs
An important criterion in locating prospective businesses is the lower tax structure of
• Clackamas County versus Multnomah County. According to the property managers on the
• SWG, this is a significant decision-making factor when locating new businesses.
•
• Kruse Way is blessed with unique assets that have resulted in its position as a premier business
• location/address in the Portland metropolitan region. It is a beautiful and spacious campus
• environment with quality designed Class A buildings, proximate to the freeway system and well
• served with parking. Preserving these assets while developing programs and strategies to
• address the evolving challenges of growth, access and transportation capacity are the basis for
the area's long-term business plan .
•
• IX. PRIORITY STATEMENTS-SWG
•
• Stakeholders were led through several discussions of priorities. They were asked to consider
• the Kruse Way corridor as it is today and what they expect it should become in the next five
• years. The following statements were based on the consensus of participating stakeholders
• and can serve as a guide for future transportation management strategies:
• Priorities were established for:
•
• A. Priority customer or target audience of Kruse Way
• B. Existing and desired economic uses within the corridor
• C. Access priorities and preferred mode choice for those in the Kruse Way area
• A. Priority Customer— Target Audience
•
• • Today, the priority `customer' of Kruse Way is the employee. Employees are far and
• away the primary users accessing businesses in the area. Secondary `customers' are
• business clients making office visits or attending on-site meetings as well as visitors to
• retail venues.
• • In five years, the priority `customer' of Kruse Way will continue to be the employee.
• • Moderate growth in retail/restaurant use will increase the number of customers and
• visitors but will unlikely change the commercial office focus of the area.
• B. Priority Economic/Land Use
•
• • Today, the priority land use of Kruse Way is commercial office.
• • In five years, the priority use will continue to be commercial office, but possibly with a
• greater mix of retail and restaurants.
•
• C. Access Priorities-Mode Choice
• • Today, the priority mode of access for employees is the car (both SOV and rideshare).
• • In five years, the priority mode of access for employees should be a better mix between
• auto and other alternative modes.
•
•
• Kruse Way TMA Feasibility Study Final Report
• Melvin Mark Development Company Page 17
di
•
•
•
•
•
• • Today, the priority mode of access for clients/visitors is the car.
• • In five years, the priority mode of access for customers/visitors should be the car.
•
• In discussing common themes and priorities, it became apparent that Kruse Way has reached a
• crossroads. With few development pads left to build on and underutilized parcels now in use as
• surface parking, the need or desire to move to a different business model is worth
• consideration. It was apparent in stakeholder discussions that the near doubling of employment
forecast over the next 20 years will likely occur, or not occur, based on how the area responds
• to access and density. However, the likelihood of effecting a significant and meaningful
• transition of users (particularly employees) to alternative modes goes beyond the work of a TMA
• and to a regional discussion and commitment to infrastructure supportive of such a shift in mode
• choices.
•
• X. BUSINESS CLIMATE SURVEY
• Task 3 of the work scope called for development of a general business climate survey to be
• distributed to business in the Kruse Way corridor. The intent of the survey was to develop a
• clear understanding of transportation challenges, opportunities and solutions as envisioned by
• the broader business community. Information garnered from the broader business community
allowed the Stakeholder Work Group to compare, contrast and test its assumptions against
those of its peers throughout the corridor.
• The information presented in this report summarizes the results of the business climate survey
• that was distributed to 278 area businesses in May 2004. An example of the Business Climate
• Survey instrument is provided as Attachment A and the anecdotal comments made by survey
• respondents are included as Attachment B.
•
• A. Methodology
•
• The consultant team developed the Business Climate Survey in conjunction with the
• Stakeholders Work Group over the course of two monthly meetings. Stakeholders were given a
draft of the survey one-month prior to distribution, allowing time for revisions, corrections and
• editing. Names and addresses of area businesses were identified assembled into a database
• mailing list. The database was used to identify a broad range of businesses and business types
• located within the Kruse Way corridor. The consultant team distributed 278 surveys, 65 of
• which were returned representing over 1,300 employees, a 23% response rate. Two weeks
• after the surveys were mailed, businesses that had not returned their surveys were individually
• contacted by telephone to encourage and maximize the number of responses.
• B. Survey Format
•
• The survey was designed to gather information regarding business perceptions and opinions on
• a range of questions related to overall business vitality and transportation (a copy of the survey
• instrument is provided as an Attachment to this report). Topic areas surveyed included:
• • Challenges to doing business in the Kruse Way corridor.
• • Congestion as it impacts customers and employees.
• • Ease of access to business as it impacts customers and employees.
• • The relative importance of the availability of parking and transit to business vitality.
• • Specific transportation"challenges" as they affect business vitality.
•
•
• Kruse Way TMA Feasibility Study Final Report
• Melvin Mark Development Company Page 18
i
•
•
•
•
•
• • Specific transportation strategies/solutions whose implementation businesses would
• support.
• • Employees and alternative transportation modes (i.e., transit, rideshare, bike/walk).
• • Level of interest by businesses in participation in the design, communication and/or shared
• cost of implementing transportation options for businesses.
• C. Survey Findings
•
The discussion below summarizes the survey findings by topic area.
•
• 1. Challenges to Doing Business
•
• Business owners were asked to identify the greatest challenges facing their businesses to
• remain viable, grow and prosper. They were asked to think within the context of the next five
• years. Respondents were presented with eight choices. `Changing economy' was cited as the
• most significant challenge to employers with 23 percent of responses. The `increasing cost of
doing business' was ranked second at 21 percent, while `finding and retaining employees' had
• 16 percent of the responses. `Employee access' and `Parking availability' garnered 9 percent
• each while "clean and safe areas around my business" and "regulatory mandates" each had 7
• percent of responses. Table 4 summarizes all of the challenges identified by respondents.
•
• Table 4
• Challenges for Business
• Challenges to Doing Business I Responses. %of Total_
• 1. Finding and retaining employees 24 16%
• 2. Increasing cost of doing business 31 21%
• 3. Clean and safe area around my business 11 7%
• 4. Availability of employees to access my business 8 5%
• 5. Ability of customers to access the work site 13 9%
6. Regulatory mandates 10 7%
• 7. Changing economy 35 23%
• 8. Parking availability 13 9%
• 9. Other 5 3%
• TOTAL 150 100%
•
• 2. Congestion and Access
• Respondents were asked to think about Congestion and Ease of Access over a five-year
• horizon and consider the impact of each on their customers and employees. Responses to this
• question were gauged on a progressive scale of importance; from the least—not a problem, to
• that of greatest importance - become a significant problem.
•
• Table 5 summarizes the results of what businesses believe congestion and ease of access will
• be like in five years for their employees. In both cases a majority of respondents noted that
• congestion (54 percent) and ease of access (72 percent) will either not be a problem or a
• moderate problem for their employees.
•
•
•
•
• Kruse Way TMA Feasibility Study Final Report
• Melvin Mark Development Company Page 19
•
t
Table 5
• Congestion/Ease of Access for Employees
Congestion Will: Responses %of Total
• 1. Not be a problem 16 25%
2. Become a moderate problem 19 29%
. 3. Become a growing problem 26 40%
4. Become a significant problem 4 6%
TOTAL 65 100%
Ease of Access Will: Responses %of Total
• 5. Not be a problem 17 27%
• 6. Become a.moderate problem 29 45%
• 7. Become a growing problem 16 25%
• 8. Become a significant problem 2 3%
• TOTAL 64 100%
•
• Table 6 summarizes the results of what businesses believe congestion and ease of access will
• be like in five years for their customers. Only 31 percent of respondents indicated that
• congestion would become a growing and/or significant problem in the Kruse Way corridor,
adversely impacting their customers. Again, as to ease of access, 31 percent indicated that it
would be growing and/or significant problem. This indicates that congestion and ease of access•
• may not be a top priority for businesses in the Kruse Way area.
• Table 6
• Congestion/Ease of Access for Customers
• Congestion Will: Responses %of Total
1. Not be a problem 27 42%•
2. Become a moderate problem 17 27• %3. Become a growing problem 15 23%
• 4. Become a significant problem 5 8%
• TOTAL 64 100%
•
• Ease of Access Will: Responses %of Total
5. Not be a problem 27 42%
6. Become a moderate problem 17 27%•
• 7. Become a growing problem 16 25%
8. Become a significant problem 4 6%
• TOTAL 64 100%
•
• 3. The Importance of Parking, Transit and CarNanpoolinq for Business
•
• Respondents were first asked to rate the adequacy of parking and transit for their employees
• and customers. Ratings were on a scale of 1 — 5, with a ranking of 1 meaning "not adequate"
and up to 5, which would indicate "more than adequate" and the middle ground (i.e., a ranking
• of 3) being "sufficient." Interestingly, only 22 percent of respondents (14 of 65) indicated that
• parking was not adequate; while almost half (46 percent) said parking was more than adequate.
• This helps to reinforce the notion that abundant parking is an opportunity/asset as discussed in
• Section VII, above. Forty percent (22 of 55) indicated that transit was not adequate to meet
• their employee/customer needs. This correlates with the SWG's concerns regarding the
• adequacy of transportation alternatives; specifically transit, in the Kruse Way corridor.
•
to
•
•
•
•
• Table 7 breaks out the responses to this question.
•
• Table 7
• Adequacy of Parking and Transit
• Not Adequate Su; cient More than Adequate #of
• 1 2 3 4 I 5 responses
• Parking 4 10 21 181 12 65
• Transit 12 10 23 6 4 55
Respondents were asked to consider the importance of increasing access options to their
•
specific work sites. They were asked to rank the importance of parking, transit and
• car/vanpooling over the next five years on a scale of 1 — 5, with 1 being "not important" and 5
" being "very important". The mid range represented "neutral" on the issue. As expected, parking
• topped the list of important options (57 percent), followed by transit (35 percent), with very little
• importance shown to carpooling (14 percent). Interestingly, there was a high amount of
• neutrality on transit and carpooling as `important' options, 45 and 49 percent, respectively.
•
• Table 8 summarizes the results to this question.
• Table 8
• Importance of Access Options
•
• 'Not Important Neutral Very important #of
• 1 2 3 4 5 responses
• Parking 3 4 21 19 18 65
Transit 8 4 28 14 8 62•
Carpool 13 10 31 6 3 63
•
The SWG asked a similar question in a different manner, forcing the issue of having to weigh in
on transit in a constrained environment. Respondents were asked if over the next five years
• parking were limited, how important to their business would it be to increase transit avialability to
• Kruse Way? Admittedly, this was a leading question, but it was asked with the intent of
• measuring a business's threshold for electing to make use of alternative options. The responses
• were reassuring. Over half of respondents (54 percent) indicated transit would increase in
importance. Approximately one-third (32 percent) remained neutral, with only 14 percent
• indicating that improved transit would be unimportant.
•
• Table 9 summarizes the distribution of responses.
•
• Table 9
• Importance of Improved Transit in a Constrained Environment
• Not Important Neutral Very important ft of
• 1 2 . 3 4 5., "' responses
Improved 4 5 21 11 24 65
• Transit
•
•
•
•
• Kruse Way TMA Feasibility Study Final Report
• Melvin Mark Development Company Page 21
AS
•
• 4. Immediate Concerns Relating to Transportation and Impact on Business
•
• Respondents were asked to list their three most immediate concerns related specifically to
• transportation and its impact on business. An assortment of transportation challenges was
listed, ranging from parking for employees and customers, to transit service and connections, to
• costs and infrastructure.
•
• Survey responses indicate that congestion is foremost on business owners' minds, receiving 24
• percent of all responses. However, if responses regarding parking for both customers and
• employees were combined, it would receive one-third of all votes (16 percent parking for
• employees and 17 percent parking for customers). Bus service/frequency received the next
highest number of responses, 9 percent overall. Several others finished with single-digit
• percentage responses.
• Table 10 lists the complete results.
•
• Table 10
• Immediate Transportation Concerns
• Transportation Concerns Responses I %of Total
• 1.Traffic congestion 42 24%
• 2. Bus service/frequency 16 9%
• 3. Cost of bus passes 1 1%
• 4. Parking for employees 27 16%
• 5. Parking for customers 29 17%
6. Lack of car/vanpool matching 0 0%
7. Availability of car/vanpool space(s) 0 0%
• 8. Transportation is not an issue for me 12 7%
9. Walk/bike infrastructure (e.g.,bike lanes) 3 2%
• 10. Availability of transit pass sales outlets 1 1%
• 11. Transit connections (to where employees live) 10 6%
12. Transit connections (to where customers live) 5 3%
13. Walk/bike on-site facilities(e.g.,bike racks) 4 2%
14. Lack of awareness/understanding of options 10 6%
15. Access to other centers(e.g_,Downtown Lake 11 6%
Oswego,Downtown Portland,Washington Square,etc.)
• 16. Other 3 2%
• TOTAL _ 174 100%
•
•
• 5. Strategies to Improve Access and Mobility
• Respondents were asked to identify three possible strategies that would be most beneficial for
• improving access and mobility in the area of their work sites. The choice receiving the highest
• percentage of responses was "more parking" (18 percent), followed by"more direct route buses
• without transfers" (16 percent). "Improving marketing/communication to local
• businesses/employees" and "better transit connections to other areas" (each at 14 percent of all
• responses) rounded out the most frequent responses.
•
• Table 11 summarizes complete results for this question.
•
•
•
•
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
• Table 11
r Beneficial Transportation Strategies for Improving Access and Mobility
Possible Strategies Responses %of Total
• 1. Emergency Ride Home 6 4%
• 2. More direct route buses without transfers 23 16%
• 3. Better transit connections to other ares 20 14%
• 4. Bicycle infrastructure (bike lanes, racks) 11 7%
i• 5. More parking 26 18%
• 6. Employee shuttle(s)to and from transit opportunities 16 11%
• 7. Pedestrian infrastructure (walk ways,crossings) 16 11%
• 8. Improved marketing/communication to local bus./employees 21 14%
9. Enhance car/vanpools 5 3%
• 10. Other 4 3%
• TOTAL 148 100%
•
• 6. Employees and Alternative Transportation Modes
•
• Given that a TMA, and the programs designed by such an organization, deal predominantly with
• alternative transportation modes (transit, bicycling, carpooling, telecommuting, etc.), it was
• important to ask a question of businesses as to reasons why their employees would choose
alternative modes. Table 12 summarizes responses to this question.
•
• Table 12
• Reasons Why Employees Would Choose Alternative Transportation
• Would Choose Alternative Modes If: • Responses %of.Total
• 1. Programs were more readily available 19 17%
• 2. Programs were simpler to understand/use 10 9%
• 3. Costs from alternative modes are reduced from present levels 9 8%
• 4. Cost of parking were increased 12 11%
• 5. Better infrastructure in place (i.e., buses, bike lanes, etc.) 10 9%
• 6. Higher awareness of these modes and their benefits 14 12%
7. My employees won't use alternative modes 34 30%
• 8. Other 6 5%
• TOTAL 114 100%
•
• Approximately a third of respondents (30 percent) indicated that their employees would not use
• alternative transportation modes. Seventeen percent of respondents indicated that if programs
• were more readily available, employees would choose alternative options. Higher awareness of
• alternative modes and their benefit received 12 percent, while cost of parking had the fourth
highest response rate with 11 percent.
•
• Overall, there is a sense that alternative modes might be better utilized if they were more readily
• available and understood by employees of the Kruse Way area.
•
• 7. Benefits of Being A Business Located in Kruse Way
•
• Respondents were asked to describe the benefits of being a business in Kruse Way. Table 13
• shows how the responses breakout.
•
• -
• Kruse Way TMA Feasibility Study Final Report
• Melvin Mark Development Company Page 23
di
•
•
•
•
•
• Table 13
• Why Locate in Kruse Way?
• Why Kruse Way? Responses %of Total
• 1. Suburban location/campus environment 31 14%
• 2. Easy access to/from Interstate 5 52 23%
• 3. Proximity to clients 19 8%
4. Proximity to a particular mix of businesses 8 4%
• 5. More parking than urban locations 32 14%
• 6. Low or no cost to parking 47 21%
• 7. Building style/floor plates 11 5%
• 8. Competitive lease rates 9 4%
• 9. Proximity to adjacent residential areas 12 5%
• 10. Other 6 3%
. TOTAL 227 100%
• The most common response was "easy access to and from Interstate 5" (23 percent) followed
by "low or no cost parking" (21 percent). "More parking than urban locations" and "suburban
• style campus environment" tied for third with 14 percent of responses each. This was an
• interesting exercise to see what factors distinguish Kruse Way from other business parks in the
• region and why there is a higher demand (i.e., above average rents, high occupancy rates, etc.)
• for this type of office environment.
• 8. Business Interest in Design, Communication and Cost of Alternative
• Transportation Programs
•
• One of the most important questions asked on the survey was "If programs were developed to
• increase transportation options for businesses, would your company participate in the design,
• communication and/or shared cost of such programs?" Respondents could select a specific
• level of participation (i.e., design) or a combination. They were also given the option to not
• participate. This question epitomizes the larger task a transportation management association
would need to deal with to be feasible. Feasibility can be directly correlated with the amount of
• community-based support the association or coalition would have. Table 14 summarizes the
• comparative results for this question.
•
• Table 14
• TMA Participation in Kruse Way
• Participation Level Responses %of Total
• 1. Design 6 9%
2. Communication 18 26• %3. Shared cost 5 7%
• 4. Would not participate 40 58%
• TOTAL 69 100%
•
• As evidenced by the table, more than half of all respondents (58 percent) indicated they would
• not participate in any way. Conversely, 42 percent noted they would participate at some level:
• communication (26 percent), design (9 percent) or shared cost (7 percent) of alternative
• transportation programs.
•
• The common themes derived from the responses of Kruse Way businesses can be summarized
• as follows:
•
• Kruse Way TMA Feasibility Study Final Report
• Melvin Mark Development Company Page 24
r
•
•
•
•
• • Transportation is not currently seen as a significant problem for employers in the
• corridor. It ranks much lower than concerns related to the economy, finding and
• retaining employees and the cost of doing business.
• • Parking is still seen as more important to business than either transit or carpooling from
the perspective of business vitality. Not until businesses are confronted with a
• "constrained parking supply" does the role of transit raise in importance.
• • When combined, the importance of parking for customers and employees (33%) ranks
• higher as a general concern for businesses than does congestion (24%).
• • There is recognition that regional connections to transit and frequent and direct service
• are strategies that would improve business vitality. However, these strategies are not
• as highly ranked as parking.
• • About a third of businesses do not believe their employees would use alternative
• modes. However, a majority agrees that awareness of existing options is low and
• programs are difficult to understand.
• • A majority of businesses surveyed (58 percent) would not participate in a TMA-like
forum on transportation issues and strategies for the corridor.
•
• XI. SUMMARY
•
• The SWG supports and promotes the values upheld by TMAs and believes that a TDM-based
• approach to addressing transportation concerns in a business district can be beneficial.
• Thorough discussions with the SWG and interviews with, and surveys of, other Kruse Way
• business owners have led to the realization that pursuing a transportation management
• association in Kruse Way would not be feasible and/or sustainable at this time. It was also
evident from the survey responses that, while there are challenges and barriers to doing
• business in Kruse Way now and in the future, transportation is not seen as a significant one
• when contrasted to other business concerns. As such, the SWG does not recommend that
• formation of a TMA be pursued.
•
• The SWG forwards the following considerations to Metro, the Regional Transportation Options
• sub-committee and the City of Lake Oswego:
• • The SWG is very concerned that future employment growth will likely need to rely on the
• single occupant vehicle trip because of lack of other real alternatives. This will have
• potential adverse impacts on access, congestion, efficiency of land use and long-term
• sustainability.
•
• • There is currently a lack of synergy between local and regional transportation planning
• efforts to meaningfully link TDM infrastructure investments and actual employment
• density (current and future).
• • Metro and the City of Lake Oswego need to engage in a more comprehensive analysis
• to determine an accurate baseline for existing employment from which discussions of
• future growth, and therefore how to serve it, can take place.
•
• • Clear mode share goals (all trips and commuter) need to be established for activity
• centers where significant transitions to non-SOV choices are desired. These goals need
• to be clearly and consistently coordinated within local and regional plans. These goals
• would then (a) be directly tied into future infrastructure investments and (b) used to
facilitate TDM efforts through local and regional partnerships with business.
•
•
• Kruse Way TMA Feasibility Study Final Report
• Melvin Mark Development Company Page 25
•
0
r
M
►E • In relation to Kruse Way, there seems to be a "false center of gravity" related to
transportation infrastructure (i.e. transit service and trip reduction planning). This issue
needs further discussion and review, particularly given the potential levels of
employment growth forecast for Kruse Way. Discussions between business interests
(represented by Kruse Way, Lake Oswego and Lake Grove Town Centers), the City of
Lake Oswego, Tri-Met and Metro should be conducted to establish clear connections
between data, planning and investment.
Kruse Way TMA Feasibility Study Final Report
Melvin Mark Development Company Page 26
c
I
N
c
< a
C
W
E (i) •
o a�
as 03
E
Q U
N
N
a)
m
• m • i • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • +• • • • • • 11
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• 2004
•
• KRUSE WAY AREA
•
• EMPLOYER SURVEY
•
•• TRANSPORTATION OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES
•
•
•
•
•
• Conducted by
•
• Kruse Way Transportation Management Association Stakeholders Group
• City of Lake Oswego
•
• Melvin Mark Development Company (Consultants)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• Please complete by'May 3,2004 and return to Project Consultant:
•
•
•
• Rick Williams/Owen Ronchelli
• do Lloyd District TMA
• 700 NE Multnomah, Suite 340
• Portland, Oregon 97232
• ph: (503) 236-6441 fax: (503) 236-6164
•
• •
•
•
•
• KRUSE WAY AREA--EMPLOYER SURVEY
•
• Dear Kruse Way area Employer: thank you for taking the time to complete this survey, which is being
S conducted by the Kruse Way Transportation Management Association Stakeholders Group and The City
of Lake Oswego. The Stakeholders Group and the City are evaluating the feasibility of forming a
• Transportation Management Association (TMA) to develop and provide transportation programs (i.e.,
transit, bus, bike/walk and parking) and assistance to area employers and their employees. When you
• complete the survey,please return it in the postage paid return envelope.
•
Company Profile
1. Company Name
• 2. Company Street Address: _ •
NO
3. Your Name and Title:
4. Phone# FAX# e-mail:
(♦ 5. Type of business(check one)
� o Commercial Office o Retail o Restaurant o Medical Office o Other(describe)
•
• 6. Approximately how many employees work at your Kruse Way office?
•
• 7. Does your business (at Kruse Way)operate multiple work shifts?o Yes o No
•
•
• Business Climate -- Future (5 years from now)
8. Please answer the following question: "In the next 5 years, the greatest challenge for my business'
• ability to remain viable,grow and prosper is(check all that apply):
•
❑i Finding and retaining employees ❑s Ability of customers to access the work site
•
❑2 Increasing costs of doing business ❑6 Regulatory mandates
❑3 Clean and safe area around my business ❑7 Changing economy
• ❑4 Ability of employees to access my business ❑e Parking availability
❑9 Other
r
• 9. Thinking in terms of your employees, within the next 5 years...
Congestion will (check one): Ease of access to my business will (check one):
❑ Not be a problem ❑5 Not be a problem
• ❑2 Become a moderate problem ❑6 Become a moderate problem
• ❑3 Become a growing problem ❑7 Become a growing problem
• ❑4 Become a significant problem ❑8 Become a significant problem
•
10. Thinking in terms of your customers,within the next 5 years...
• Congestion will (check one): Ease of access to my business will (check one):
❑i Not be a problem ❑5 Not be a problem
•
❑2 Become a moderate problem ❑6 Become a moderate problem
❑3 Become a growing problem ❑7 Become a growing problem
M ❑4 Become a significant problem ❑8 Become a significant problem
•
•
•
•
•
• Business Climate -- Future (continued)
•• 11. Are current levels of parking and transit in Kruse Way adequate to meet your employee/customer
needs?
•
• Not adequate Sufficient More than adequate
• Parking 1 2 3 4 5
• Transit 1 2 3 4 5
• (e.g.,bus)
•
12. Over the next 5 years, how important to your business will it be to increase access options (i.e.,
• parking, transit and car/vanpools)?
•
Not important Neutral Very Important
•
Parking 1 2 3 4 5
• Transit 1 2 3 4 5
• CarNanpool 1 2 3 4 5
•
• 13. If over the next 5 years parking were limited, how important to your business would it be to increase
• transit availability to Kruse Way?
• Not important Neutral Very Important
• Improved transit 1 2 3 4 5
•
• Business Climate -- Toda
•
• 14. Mark your three(3) most immediate concerns related to transportation as it affects your business:
• ❑1 Traffic Congestion ❑to Walk/Bike infrastructure(bike lanes/ped. crossings)
• ❑2 Bus service/frequency 1311 Availability of transit pass sales outlets
• ❑3 Cost of bus passes ❑12 Transit connections(to where employees live)
• ❑• Parking for employees ❑13 Transit connections(to where customers live)
• ❑s Parking for customers ❑14 Walk/Bike on-site facilities (walk ways/bike racks)
• ❑e Lack of carpool/vanpool matching ❑15 Lack of awareness/understanding of options
• ❑7 Availability of carpool/vanpool space(s)1316 Access to other centers(e.g.downtown Lake Oswego,
• ❑e Transportation is not an issue for me downtown Portland,Washington Square,etc)
• ❑e Other
•
• 15. Are there more specific concerns you have relative to transportation problems that affect your
• • business or the business district where you are located? If so, please describe them.
•
•
• 16. Mark three (3) transportation strategies you feel would be most beneficial for improving access and
• mobility.
• ❑1 Emergency Ride Home Program ❑7 Employee shuttle(s)to and from transit opportunities
• ❑2 More direct route buses without transfers ❑8 Pedestrian infrastructure(walk ways,crossings)
• i ❑3 Better transit connections to other areas ❑e Improved marketing/communication to local
• ❑4 Bicycle infrastructure(bike lanes, racks) businesses/employees
• ❑s More parking ❑,o Enhance car/vanpools
• ❑e Other
•
•
•
•
•
• a-niei4*r.rsvnii it��-ir���t �•�• -r-i
17. Are there other more specific strategies that you would suggest for improving access and mobility to
• and from your work site? If so, please describe them.
•
•
• ' 18. Please answer the following question (check up to 3 choices): "My employees would take
• alternative transportation modes(i.e.,transit, carpool/vanpool, bike/walk)to work if:"
• ❑i Alternatives to commuting by car were more readily available
• ❑2 Alternatives to commuting by car were simpler to understand/use
• ❑3 Costs from alternative modes are reduced from present levels
• ❑4 Better regional transit connections were available
• ❑s Better infrastructure was in place(i.e., buses, bike lanes,matching programs)
• ❑s There was higher awareness of these modes and their benefits
❑7 My employees won't use alternative modes
• ❑e Other
•
•
• 19. What are the benefits of being a business located in the Kruse Way area?
•
• ❑, Suburban location/campus environment
• ❑2 Easy access to/from 15
• ❑3 Proximity to clients
• ❑4 Proximity to a particular mix of businesses
• ❑s More parking than urban locations
• ❑e Low or no cost for parking
• ❑7 Building style/floor plates
• ❑8 Competitive lease rates
❑s Proximity to adjacent residential areas/executive housing
• ❑io Other(please describe)
•
• 20. How important to your business and employees are business efforts that improve air quality, protect
• the environment and enhance quality of life?
•
Not important Neutral Very Important
• 1 2 3 4 5
•
•
21. If programs were developed to increase transportation options for businesses, would your company
• participate in the design, communication and/or shared cost of such programs? [NOTE: Shared cost
could be between employer and employee, business consortiums or between business and public
• agencies.]We would participate in(check all that apply):
• ❑i Design ❑2 Communication ❑3 Shared cost ❑4 Would not participate
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
co
c
a)
E
m p
0
aci ai
E a)
t
o a)
ca _
Q c5
0
U
a)
C
Q
•
•
•
•
•
• 2004 Kruse Way Area Employer Survey
• Respondent Comments
•
General Comments
• 1) Why didn't we get a survey with the I5 Kruse Way exchange, it cost a fortune and is still
• a mess!
•
• 8. Please answer the following question: "In the next 5 years, the greatest challenge for my
• business' ability to remain viable, grow and prosper is (check all that apply):"
•
• The following fell under the `Other' response choice.
• 1) State/local taxes
• 2) Having customers
• 3) Generating new leads
• 4) Office space availability
• 5) Investment environment
•
• 13. If over the next 5 years parking were limited, how important to your business would it
• be to increase transit availability to Kruse Way?
•
• 1) People do not and have not, for 23 years, used transit to get to my type of business.
• Always carrying products need a car for(?)
•
• 15. Are there more specific concerns you have relative to transportation problems that
• affect your business or the business district where you are located? If so, please
• describe them.
• 1) Too much money has been allocated for empty buses and MAX trains;we need more
• lanes on I5, I205 and up Graoen(?) exit and entrance ramps and Hwy. 217
• 2) Lack of respect for laws relating to pedestrian and bicycle paths
3) No more roundabouts please. Freeway congestion is a problem,buses are useless since
• they take hours to get from here to our homes.
• 4) Inadequate planning and permitting process related to continuing development with
• insufficient attention paid to impacts on increased traffic and traffic flows in the area.
• 5) Traffic congestion on side streets during rush hours/timing of traffic signals
•
•
16. Mark three (3) transportation strategies you feel would be most beneficial for
• improving access and mobility.
•
• The following fell under the `Other' response choice.
• 1) More highway lanes
• 2) Improve traffic flow on Hwy 217
• 3) MAX line
• 4) Moratorium on future development along Kruse Way until present traffic flows and
• related problems can be resolved.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
17. Are there other more specific strategies that you would suggest for improving access
• and mobility to and from your worksite? If so, please describe them.
• 1) Double lanes on and off I205 intersection in all directions. No double lane going to
• single lane merges. More freeway lanes.
2) MAX line down this direction
• 3) IS congestion is a problem—I5 to I205 interchange
• 4) Advance notice of conferences and meetings(large)to be held at our location. We've
• been caught off guard by the parking shortage when these occur.
•
• 18. Please answer the following question (check up to 3 choices): "My employees would
• take alternative transportation modes (i.e.,transit,car/vanpool, bike/walk) to work
• if..."
•
• The following fell under the `Other' response choice.
• 1) America is a car society,we want to come and go as desired
• 2) A bus went from their house to here (KW) in under one hour
• 3) Our long-distance employees need convenience as least equal to driving
• 4) MAX line
• 5) Due to our business,our employees must drive to a variety of locations
• 6) If transportation times were less than or equal to auto
• 7) They could stay warm and dry door-to-door
•
• 19. What are the benefits of being a business located in the Kruse Way area?
• The following fell under the `Other' response choice.
• 1) Notoriety
• 2) Close to owner's home
• No business taxes
• Easy metro access
• 3) The status of the properties and being located on a well known busy corridor
• 4) Landscaping
• 5) Proximity to my home
• 6) Closer to president's residence
•
• 21. If programs were developed to increase transportation options for businesses,would
• your company participate in the design, communication and/or shared cost of such
• programs? [Note: Shared cost could be between employer and employee, business
• consortiums or between business and public agencies.] We would participate in (check
• all that apply):
•
• The following were unsolicited statements/suggestions offered up by respondents to question
• number 21.
• 1) Transportation/parking is fine—stay on this side of IS
• 2) Will not pay
• 3) This is a waste of time
•
•
11
•
•
•
•
•
• 4) If you impose changes, I might just leave
+ 5) We already pay the TriMet tax—no more
+ 6) Providence provides transit passes to all employees already!
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•