vision around the mountain workshop 4 meeting summary
TRANSCRIPT
Page 1 of 23
Vision Around the Mountain Workshop 4 Meeting Summary Monday, May 24, 2021
Stakeholders Present Name Affiliation
Andi Howell City of Sandy
Andrea Breault Cascades East Transit
Benn Watts United States Forest Service
Claire Fernandes United States Forest Service
David Duncan Gray Line of Portland, Big Pink Sightseeing
Emily Reed Columbia Gorge Tourism Alliance
Greg Leo The Leo Company
Greg Pack Mt. Hood Meadows
Jamie Lemon United States Department of Transportation
Jay Higgins City of Gresham
John Andoh CAT Transit
John Whitman Ride Connection
Jon Tullis Timberline Lodge
Karen Beuhrig Clackamas County
Kate Drennan Mid-Columbia Economic Development District
Kathy Fitzpatrick Mid-Columbia Economic Development District
Khrys Jones Sandy Area Chamber of Commerce
Kristen Stallman Oregon Department of Transportation
Kristin Dahl Crosscurrent Collective
Kristina Babcock Mt. Hood Express
Lizzie Keenan Clackamas County Tourism and Cultural Affairs
Lynn Burditt United States Forest Service
Matthew Drake Mt. Hood Meadows Ski Resort
Megan Ramey Region 1 Area Commission on Transportation
Patricia Fink Columbia Area Transit
Rian Windsheimer Oregon Department of Transportation
Samara Phelps Mt. Hood Territory
Scott Bricker Travel Oregon
Scott Kaden United States Forest Service
Teresa Christopherson Mt. Hood Express
Terra Lingley Oregon Department of Transportation
Terrie Jarrell United States Forest Service
Page 2 of 23
Theresa Conley Oregon Department of Transportation
Valerie Egon Multnomah Falls Shuttle
Staff Present Name Affiliation
Jason Kelly Oregon Department of Transportation
Kyle Taniguchi Nelson\Nygaard
Stephanie Wright Nelson\Nygaard
Leah Litwak EnviroIssues
Susan Hayman Ross Strategic
Meeting Opening Welcome and Opening Remarks Facilitator Susan Hayman (Ross Strategic) welcomed participants and asked them to respond to a poll on
the following question: How would you like to continue to engage after today's session?
Responses included:
Regular updates from groups implementing identified actions.
Continue as part of a project team for implementation.
I am willing to support as requested by Travel Oregon, ODOT, or other key stakeholders. I can assist with facilitation, convening, strategic planning, action planning, etc. as it pertains to the project.
Get updates on progress with funding
and next steps.
Continue joining meetings in the current format.
Continue with large group “check-ins” scheduled and ran by ODOT.
Participate in ongoing check-ins with stakeholders/participants to discuss current and recent projects, progress towards implementation, funding, etc. in relation to VAM outcomes, to keep the momentum going, as needed.
Hayman then walked participants through the workshop objectives and agenda:
Objectives:
Unveil the Vision
Optimize Actions
Set the Course for Collaborative Action
Agenda:
Welcome
How We Got Here
Framework 4 Action Review
Page 3 of 23
Breakout Group Synopsis
Moving VAM forward and Next Steps
Jason Kelly (Oregon Department of Transportation, ODOT) thanked everyone for joining and highlighted
that this workshop represents a culmination of the work completed over the last ten months and one of
the goals is to start looking forward to how to continue this work. Jason posed the question “Can you
stand behind this project?” and asked participants to think about what needs to happen for them to
stand behind this work.
Kelly shared the vision journey of the Vision Around the Mountain (VAM) process and reviewed the
work from the first three workshops. The work consisted of defining a vision, principles, goals, and
strategies.
How We Got Here Stephanie Wright (Nelson\Nygaard) explained the steps taken between VAM Workshop 3 and VAM
Workshop 4 to finalize the strategies and goals and develop the Framework 4 Action documents. She
noted that:
At workshop 3 there were questions about some of the language for the goals and strategies.
As a result, a group came together on 3/18 to land on final language for principles and goals.
Throughout this process the group identified strategies and potential projects that could move
us towards this vision.
The project team and TAC developed the Framework 4 Action based on stakeholders’ feedback.
The Framework 4 Action charts the course of how to move forward with this work.
The project team conducted one-on-one meetings with the TAC, Forest Service and Ski resorts
to understand if the vision is moving in the right direction.
Wright continued to explain that the Framework 4 Action is trying to accomplish several things. She
noted that it is trying to come up with the next steps towards the vision. It is also identifying what needs
to happen and when. There is phasing involved that includes immediate actions, near term actions, and
Page 4 of 23
longer-term actions. She stated that the final piece is that the Framework 4 Action is trying to be
realistic about what resources are available and what is already funded or unfunded.
Wright also explained what action/concepts are included in the Framework 4 Action. She noted there
was a lot of idea generation for projects in the first three workshops in addition to the projects that are
already funded. The Framework 4 Action brings those two together. It includes projects identified in an
adopted plan, but funding might not be designated yet. It also includes the ideas that were generated
through this process. These new items have support of the group and still need to identify what actions
can be taken to move towards this vision.
Wright explained that the Framework 4 Action documents present the vision in two ways:
1. A final report with all the different actions and concepts grouped into 14 topic categories.
2. A spreadsheet with all the details for backend tracking.
Page 5 of 23
Hayman noted that there was previously a comment on vision principles and goals as it relates to the
Columbia Gorge region. Kelly responded that the Gorge’s needs will be clarified in the final VAM report,
since there is a companion planning project in that region. He noted that the VAM vision statement and
principles incorporate the Gorge region and acknowledge that it has its own planning process. Kelly will
work with the parties who provided the comment to clarify this in the preamble of the VAM report.
Framework 4 Action Review Hayman explained that in this section of the meeting, participants split into breakout rooms to review
the Framework 4 Action and flag actions or concepts that they cannot currently support. For each action
or concept, participants reviewed the timing, if it is already planned, or has designated funding.
Following this, facilitators worked through the flags with the groups to clarify and/or reach a mutual
understanding. A link to a Google document outlining the topics, actions or concepts was provided to
each participant. There were three rounds of breakout rooms, with 20 minutes allotted for the first and
second rotations and 15 minutes for third. Topic facilitators moved rooms and participants stayed in the
same room throughout. Participants were encouraged to refer to the Framework 4 Action report and
spreadsheet during the exercise. The following questions were posed:
Can you stand behind these actions/concepts? If not, why not?
Do you have other actions to propose?
Breakout Room Topics
Topic Group 1: Route Network, Transit Hub Network, Service Levels
Topic Group 2: Transit Hub & Stop Amenities, Equitable & Safe Access, Real-time Information,
Fare Structure, Travel Times
Topic Group 3: Governance, Recreation Lands Access, Congestion Management, Marketing &
Branding, Economy, Capital Equipment
Refer to Attachment 1 for the tables and notes captured in each breakout group.
Breakout Group Synopsis After the breakout sessions, all the stakeholders reconvened, and the facilitators of each breakout group
shared a summary of what they discussed.
Topic Group 1: Route Network, Transit Hub Network, Service Levels Stephanie Wright (Nelson\Nygaard) shared that participants noted the level of detail in the Google doc
was hard to follow without having read the longer document. There were also questions about context
and meaning of some of the actions or concepts. Additionally, there were questions about what is
proposed to move forward with existing providers versus new ideas from the visioning workshops, and
emphasis on making clear what the group is working towards. Items were flagged across actions and
concepts and were not focused in any one area.
Topic Group 2: Transit Hub & Stop Amenities, Equitable & Safe Access, Real-time
Information, Fare Structure, Travel Times Kyle Taniguchi (Nelson\Nygaard) shared that participants noted concerns about knowing which actions
are already funded or planned and what will be included in the future vision. There was discussion about
Page 6 of 23
whether the model of a seat reservation service aligned with the mission of public transportation
providers. There was also discussion about certain actions and concepts being too specific, and should
be broadened to include all transit providers (i.e., ‘Upgrading Mt. Hood Express Stops’ only calls out Mt.
Hood Express but if it’s broader then all providers in the region can be included in these updates). It was
also noted that the action about dispatch software is not applicable to the vision and should be modified
before finalizing the plan.
Topic Group 3: Governance, Recreation Lands Access, Congestion Management, Marketing
& Branding, Economy, Capital Equipment Susan Hayman (Ross Strategic) noted three main areas of conversation from participants. First was the
importance of being thoughtful about governance. Participants want to look for efficiencies and avoid
duplicating collaboration that is already occurring within the region. Second, there was discussion about
the Columbia Gorge integration between Oregon and Washington. Last, Hayman shared that the some
felt the specificity of naming transit providers isn’t helpful, and the actions should be broader and more
inclusive.
Jason Kelly (ODOT) added that there was conversation about ‘Research Resource Balancing for Other
Seasonal Systems’ and that it is important to include resource balancing in the short term, as well as the
long term.
Moving VAM Forward and Next Steps Key things to think about
Wright provided an estimate for the VAM to become operational. The current transit system costs about
$2 million per year. The vision would cost about $5 million per year. This is more than double the cost
just to operate, not including capital costs of vehicles and getting operations off the ground.
Wright shared ideas about potential sources where funding might come from and asked participants
about their thoughts on other ways this vision can be funded. She shared the example that the Mt.
Bachelor shuttle is 60% funded by the Mt. Bachelor Resort.
Page 7 of 23
Wright asked who benefits from a regional system and outlined the benefits for various stakeholders
involved in the VAM process, such as Ski resorts, USFS, ODOT, Portland Metro area, mountain
communities, and the tourism sector.
Finally, Wright shared challenges to overcome to move the vision forward. She acknowledged that it is a
challenge to work outside of jurisdictional lines as transit providers, and the VAM still needs
leaders/champions to continue the project. She emphasized that not one agency can solve this alone
since this is a collective, regional problem with multiple parties involved. Challenges include:
Multiple jurisdictions (cities, counties, USFS, ODOT, transit district)
Multiple transit providers (from the customer’s perspective)
Existing providers have many other priorities besides transportation to the mountain
Staffing for transit is tied to city/county providers
Balancing access to natural areas (USFS) with high-intensity uses (ski resorts)
Who benefits from better transit vs. who is paying/who should pay
Page 8 of 23
Finding leaders/champions
VAM Next Steps
Kelly explained that between now and the time of the published final report, the Framework 4 Action
will continue to be refined. The final report is expected to be completed by mid-summer (July 2021).
Following the completion of the final report, ODOT will continue with the Mt. Hood Multimodal
Transportation Plan update anticipated for late summer/early fall 2021.
Kelly provided an example VAM leadership model for consideration showing how this work could be
lead moving forward. He shared that this process was meant to set forth a framework, and there needs
to be clarity, alignment, and support from partners. At this time there is not a defined lead agent,
though different or numerous partners may share that responsibility.
Kelly opened the conversation to questions and comments from the stakeholder group. The following
are key discussion points:
How have TriMet and Metro been involved in the multimodal planning process?
o Kelly responded that TriMet and Metro are part of working groups to inform those
projects; he will follow-up with more information after the workshop.
Clarification for what ‘action’ means next.
o Kelly responded that the project will start with implementation, though not every
element of the vision will be deployed right away.
Level of involvement of Congressman Blumenauer’s office with this plan? Can we expect any
funding targeted to this area?
o Kelly responded that the Congressman’s office has been involved, though it is more
observational than guiding and steering. ODOT will consult with the Congressman’s
office upon completion to get feedback about what items they see of value from this
process.
Clarification about ‘Action team A’ and ‘Action team B’ listed in the example leadership model.
o Kelly responded that those are places to depict where the leadership team will provide
consultation and prioritization of work. This structure reflects what the team could be
Page 9 of 23
overseeing and key elements that might be important in the next year. This could be
discussed further with partners at the conversation in June.
This model is similar to the network model that the Columbia Gorge Tourism Alliance is formed
around, and this is a strong model. A strong vision and a manager are needed to coordinate the
players. This model allows inclusion of all the perspectives and tackles from different
viewpoints. A model like this could work here.
Kelly and Hayman thanked everyone for their contributions to this project. Kelly shared that today
represents the highest investments in public transit to date, noting that public transit has come a long
way and there is a clear vision for the future. He invited people to attend the conversation in June to
continue engaging and sharing thoughts about the future of the VAM.
Page 10 of 23
Attachment 1 Table Notes from Breakout Discussions: Topic 1 (Route Network, Transit Hub Network, Service Levels)
................................................................................................................................................................ 11
Topic: Route Network ......................................................................................................................... 11
Topic: Transit Hub Network ................................................................................................................ 12
Topic: Service Levels ........................................................................................................................... 13
Table Notes from Breakout Discussions: Topic 2 (Transit Hub Stop and Amenities, Equitable and Safe
Access, Fare Structure, Travel Times, Real-time Information) ............................................................... 14
Topic: Transit Hub & Stop Amenities .................................................................................................. 14
Topic: Equitable & Safe Access ........................................................................................................... 14
Topic: Fare Structure ........................................................................................................................... 15
Topic: Travel Times ............................................................................................................................. 16
Topic: Real-time Information .............................................................................................................. 17
Table Notes from Breakout Discussions: Topic 3 (Governance, Economy, Recreation Lands Access &
Congestion Management, Marketing, Branding, & Customer Engagement, Capitol Equipment) ......... 19
Topic: Governance .............................................................................................................................. 19
Topic: Economy ................................................................................................................................... 20
Topic: Recreation Lands Access & Congestion Management ............................................................. 20
Topic: Marketing, Branding, & Customer Engagement ...................................................................... 22
Topic: Capital Equipment .................................................................................................................... 22
Page 11 of 23
Table Notes from Breakout Discussions: Topic 1 (Route Network, Transit Hub Network, Service Levels)
Topic: Route Network
Topic ID# Action Planned? Funded? Timing Facilitator Notes
Route Network
5 Connect Warm Springs to Government Camp
P $ Immediate
6 Fill Missing Mountain
Transit Link between Timberline Lodge and Mt
Hood Meadows
Near
7 Pilot Limited-Stop Service
on Highway 26
Near R2: Question on how this is different from MHX which is limited
service stop service already. Concerns about introducing a new limited stop service. Is this something different?
8 Plan Mountain Circulator
Near 1Is this different from F? R3: More specifics on what this means
B Connect Sandy to Clackamas Town Center
P
Long
C Provide Highway 26/35
Local Service
Long R1: What is the purpose of this, is it expanded local/express
service? Need more clarity Should also go from Portland to Sandy
D Provide Highway 26/35 Express Service
Long R1: What is the purpose of this, is it expanded local/express
service? Need more clarity Should also go from Portland to Sandy
E Determine East Multnomah County
Travel Demand between Gresham and Troutdale
Long
F Develop Mountain
Transit Circulator
Long R2: additional layer to add here - hop on/hop off service to trailheads;
ideal to get off at one stop and hop back on at the end of your trail; Historic Highway May/July will pilot hop on/hop off (Gray Line, Sasquatch Shuttle)
G Provide On-Demand Services
Long R1: It’s a good idea, but could the mountain circulator address this?
R2: unsure of what this is getting at… along Hwy 26, up to Timberline Lodge… add more specificity and how this contributes to the overall vision
Page 12 of 23
R3: Concerns about what this means… this can be very costly for local providers
H Explore Gondola/Aerial Tram between
Government Camp and Timberline Lodge
P
Long R1: Cost to build and maintain them is very high; e.g. Telluride has some that were funded from homeowner association; cost millions to maintain $35-$40M replacement cost
Topic: Transit Hub Network
Topic ID# Action Planned? Funded? Timing Facilitator Notes
Transit Hub
Network
9 Complete Clackamas County Transit Hubs
Study
P $ Immediate
10 Develop Highway 35 Park
and Ride Options P $ Immediate
11 Develop Location for
Hood River Transit Hub P
Immediate Anchor Way and turn restrictions; ODOT discussing with CAT (not a
deal breaker, but a consideration) 12 Finalize Government
Camp Rest Area Relocation
P
Immediate
13 Explore Sandy Transit
Hub with Park & Ride
Immediate
14 Develop Phased Bus
Stops List and Associated Amenities
Near R1: Clarify role of ODOT and how coordination can happen. ROW -
ODOT?
15 Formalize Existing
Highway 26 Park and Rides
P
Near
16 Explore New Highway 26
Park and Rides P
Near R2: Put big P&R on Welches not Rhododendron; more services and
activity in Welches; current P&R across from Thriftway; Welches has signal infrastructure
I Develop Transit Hubs as Places
Long
Page 13 of 23
Topic: Service Levels
Topic ID# Action Planned? Funded? Timing Facilitator Notes
Service Levels
20 Accommodate Peak Winter Transit Demand
(more trips to accommodate high
demand and pass-ups in Dec/Jan)
Near R1: Providers already seek to do this - is this referring to increasing
frequency, longer service days, etc? Same with #21.
21 Evaluate Service Levels -
Adding weekend service on Hwy 26, increased frequency on Hwy 35
P Partially $
Near ?
K Understand Unique Trip
Patterns (outreach to understand travel
demand patterns of the region)
Long R1: Add Portland to Sandy service somewhere in plan.
R2: Also can any of these action items be interconnected?
L Establish Target Service
Levels and Increase Service (establish target service levels by season and weekday/weekend)
Long
General notes from Topic Group 1:
MHX bike trailers get full in summer; need more capacity; opportunity to use CGE trailers?
Upper valley - school district is the largest employer; maybe use subsidies to encourage student/staff usage of transit?
Columbia gorge Tourism Alliance uses network model; need a manager in addition to a vision (which we have)
Page 14 of 23
Table Notes from Breakout Discussions: Topic 2 (Transit Hub Stop and Amenities, Equitable and Safe Access, Fare Structure,
Travel Times, Real-time Information)
Topic: Transit Hub & Stop Amenities
Topic ID# Action Planned? Funded? Timing Facilitator Notes
Transit Hub & Stop
Amenities
17 Upgrade MHX Stops P $ Immediate R2: Why just MHX stops? Should apply to all providers, this document may not be usable for obtaining funding. Enhance and provide documentation that all transit providers have in a plan. There are stop improvements identified along Hwy 35 as well.
18 Research Desired Bus
Stop Amenities at Transit Hubs
Immediate R2: We need ODOT to identify bus stop locations on ROW not just
where to put amenities. What about crosswalks?
19 Add Gresham Transit
Center Amenities P
Near R2: This is a TriMet transit center, who hasn’t been involved in these
discussions - need to clarify (this is in the Sandy Transit Master Plan and there are no facil
J Build Out Transit Hub Amenities at Primary and Secondary Hubs
Long
Topic: Equitable & Safe Access
Topic ID# Action Planned? Funded? Timing Facilitator Notes
Equitable & Safe Access
22 Purchase New Dispatch Software for Clackamas County operators and
non profits
P $ Immediate R2: This item does not fit well within this plan (may need to be taken out)
23 Enhance Accessibility
near Bus Stops (ADA upgrades on CAT)
P $ Immediate R2: Expectation that all stops should achieve this. Also, about calling out a specific provider
Page 15 of 23
24 Increase Service for
Transit-Dependent Populations (CAT)
P $ Immediate R2: Specific provider.
25 Improve Bus Stop Safety
along Highway 26 (per Villages Plan)
P
Immediate R2: Specific about only one corridor, needs to apply to all areas. This applies to 35 as well. R3:
M Prioritize Walk/Bike Links to Transit in Long-Range
and Capital Plans
Long
Topic: Fare Structure
Topic ID# Action Planned? Funded? Timing Facilitator Notes
Fare Structure
26 Expand Low-Income Fare Program (GO Pass)
P $ Immediate R3:
27 Complete Clackamas
County Integrated Fare Study
P $ Immediate R1: What is the funded study was anticipated to do and how this is integrated with other agencies. Integrated fee study for the VAM operators would be a good project.
28 Upgrade SAM fareboxes
to allow for tap cards and phone payment
P
Near R2: Why just SAM?
29 Research Seat
Reservations and Legal Implications
Near R2: Question about charter service? There are discussions in other
parts of the plan that relate to service that is not typical of transit service (more conducive to private service providers). May need to identify some of these strategies that would need to be provided by private providers and not public transit providers. State the problem (that the bus may be full, and thus having a reserved seat is important from the rider’s perspective)
Page 16 of 23
R3: The concern is less about ‘stepping on toes’ of charter service providers but if this approach aligns with the mission/service model of public transportation providers
N Integrate Dynamic Booking (passengers can book a seat on the bus if
space available)
Long R1: Likes that this is action oriented and prioritized. Thought that this
could be accelerated or moved up in the timeline. R2: Depending on how the service is funded, this may not be possible R3: The concern is less about ‘stepping on toes’ of charter service providers but if this approach aligns with the mission/service model of public transportation providers
O Develop Transit Pass Program (with
employers)
Long R2:
R3: Expand to a pass program that can be used on multiple transit providers
P Consider Locals Discount
Long
Topic: Travel Times
Topic ID# Action Planned? Funded? Timing Facilitator Notes
Travel Times
30 Minimize Transfer Times Between Existing
Providers
Immediate
31 Identify Existing Transit
Delay Locations
Immediate
32 Set Up Systems for Real-
Time Integration
Near
33 Place Transit at the Front
Door of Major Destinations
Near
34 Improve CGE-TriMet
Connection in Troutdale
Near
35 Document Infrastructure
Projects that Reduce Transit Travel Times and
P
Near
Page 17 of 23
Improve Safety (e.g. new signals)
Q
Implement Transit Priority (e.g. bus lanes, Transit Signal Priority)
Long R2: Want to be in the plan, but be more specific to this study area (not
a reference to Hwy97/Bend)
R Minimize Dwell Time (e.g. off board fare payment,
in-lane stops)
Long
Topic: Real-time Information
Topic ID# Action Planned? Funded? Timing Facilitator Notes
Real-Time Information
36 Install Digital Sign Boards in Hood River (CAT)
P $ Immediate R1: Has the type of information been decided? R2:
37 Publish Real-Time
Parking Capacity on Ski Resort Web Sites
Immediate
V Provide Integrated Web
Site with Transportation Information and Options
Long
W Expand Cell Phone Coverage so People can
Access Information
P
Long
R1: Overall comment about priorities: For those that are specific to all providers, it should be noted that they apply to everyone. R1: About Mt. Hood/CG integration - there could be value integrating with Gorge Fare Study (related to how customers use the overall system or different providers) R2:Still does not agree with identifying specific providers A lot of issues in this plan relate to Hwy 26/35 and something that the providers can not solve (eg., stop locations) Is there group buy off on moving to a charter type system?
Page 18 of 23
Concern about some of these strategies being in the plan if public transit providers can not do them. R3:Reinforce the integration components (specific to fares) - make this a unified experience from the customer’s standpoint. Have operators of the Breeze service been involved? COIC/CET works closely with Breeze and they have been updated on the process.
Page 19 of 23
Table Notes from Breakout Discussions: Topic 3 (Governance, Economy, Recreation Lands Access & Congestion Management,
Marketing, Branding, & Customer Engagement, Capitol Equipment)
Topic: Governance
Topic ID# Action Planned? Funded? Timing Facilitator Notes
Governance 1 Formalize MHTA with Charter, Roles, Responsibilities
P
Immediate R1: Some understanding needed of whether MHTA has been approached for their interest in this.[Response: understood MHTA has this discussion underway? Yes, but activity is specific to development of the transit hub -- not specifically about VAM]] R3: Is there an effort to expand MHTA to include VAM? [Response...not conversation yet for full-blown expansion. Some conversation about including additional membership to include other partners, but no action contemplated yet?
2 Develop VAM Leadership Team
Immediate
3 Identify Governance
Goals and Limitations of Existing Model(s)
P
Immediate R2: What this would look like and how it would be associated with the planning going on in the Gorge? [Response: need to evaluate and consider, look at what is missing, and propose options--no model currently identified/selected] {Note the importance of identifying who will be responsible for moving actions forward -- in order for VAM to be successful. R2: Who is responsible for the next step? R3: Concern with Columbia Gorge and need for integrated transportation in Oregon and WA. Need to clarify the scope and scale of this effort so that we aren’t creating confusion; so that we don’t create a “just Oregon” side that is difficult to integrate into WA...CGX was originally CG oriented. Could have two groups connected/sharing, or one body doing both.
4 Implement Governance Model(s)
Near How would this overlap with mid-Gorge strategy? Potential impact
of overlap and effects on partners involved in more than one. ; Why would we be looking at other governance models? Do we need to establish criteria to determine what we really need (may not be governance? [response: #3 would be the first step to determine appropriate form before implementation] Important to identify what
Page 20 of 23
the model needs to accomplish--if we can get there without another governance model, why not do that?
A Research Resource Balancing for Other Seasonal Systems
Long R2: Feels like best practices should be looked at right now...long
term feels a little late.
Topic: Economy
Topic ID# Action Planned? Funded? Timing Facilitator Notes
Economy S Implement Summit Redevelopment
P $ Long R1: Unclear what this is? R3: Is this referring to Govt Camp rest area relocation, or redevelop of base of Summit ski area (need better description)
T Complete Molly’s Portal for Timberline Lodge
Long
R1: Unclear of what this means if not familiar with history? R3: Molly’s portal would only be necessary if the redevelopment of the base area and gondola would NOT go forward. Seems like an either/or with ”S.”
U Explore Feeder Service to bring people from
outside the transit service area to a stop
P $ Long
Topic: Recreation Lands Access & Congestion Management
Topic ID# Action Planned? Funded? Timing Facilitator Notes
Recreation Lands Access & Congesti
on Manage
ment
38 Complete Sno-Park Fee Analysis
P $ Immediate
Page 21 of 23
39 Finish National Visitor
Use Monitoring; Provides Data on Usage at
Trailheads/Sno Parks
P $ Immediate R2: Just one data set that could be used. More date we need...may need a more intense study given how this national VUM is being implemented. Do a more comprehensive study. [Response...perhaps could refine to “suite of data”? Different tools we can look at].
40 Explore Parking
Management & Mitigations
Immediate R3: Question about the scope of this action...MHMMTP...not sure of
the geographic scope of this plan (project area). Need to clarify. (see chat link: https://www.oregon.gov/odot/projects/pages/project-details.aspx?project=MHMTP#:~:text=Hood%20Multimodal%20Transportation%20Plan%20built,increased%20transit. Like the term “villages”
41 Establish Maximum
Persons at One Time (PAOT) at Sno-Parks and
Trailheads
Near
42 Evaluate Sno-Park Access
with Study P
Near
X Increase Enforcement of
Illegal/Unsafe Parking and Access Behaviors
Long
Y Continue Exploring
Congestion Pricing
Long
Z Integrate Outfitter Guides
as Transportation Option
Long
AA Develop Transit and
Recreation Lands Policy
Long
BB Explore Dynamic Visitor
Balancing (direct people to places where there is
capacity)
Long
Page 22 of 23
CC Establish Return Trip
Service (shuttle people back to their start
location from the end of trailheads)
Long
Topic: Marketing, Branding, & Customer Engagement
Topic ID# Action Planned? Funded? Timing Facilitator Notes
Marketing, Branding, & Customer
Engagement
43 Provide Ski Pass Discounts for those who
arrive by transit
Immediate
44 Promote Caring for the
Mountain
Near
45 Create “How to get to
the Mountain by Transit” Brochure and
Website
Near R2: Creation of a brand new website seems premature, unless there
a “single brand” of transportation around mountain. Otherwise, existing websites could be the home for this information. Brochure makes sense, but new website would not be necessary without a single brand. Language needs to include more connected transit. “Webpage” would be more near term. This action feels quite prescriptive...would like language broadened to “communication strategies” through the partners (check to see this broader framing is there)
DD Develop a Brand Around Service to the Mountain
(Example: Northwest Connector)
Long
EE Integrate Education/Enjoyment
with history and culture programming
Long
Topic: Capital Equipment
Topic ID# Action Planned? Funded? Timing Facilitator Notes
Page 23 of 23
Capital Equipment
46 MHX Capital Upgrades (e.g., bike trailers, ski
boxes, bus technology, or vehicles)
P $ Immediate R1: Take MHX out of it and say “transit providers” Also “purchase storage equipment” could be expanded in the longer term.
47 Purchase Vehicles to
maintain and expand existing service on MHX
and CAT systems
P $ Immediate R1: Why not say expand existing services, rather than specific transit providers.
FF Purchase Storage
Equipment to store skis, snowboards, and mountain bikes
Long See above
GG Research Alternative Fuel Transit Vehicles
Long