Vision Around the Mountain Workshop 4 Meeting Summary

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

https://www.oregon.gov/odot/projects/pages/project-details.aspx?project=MHMTP#:~:text=Hood%20Multimodal%20Transportation%20Plan%20built,increased%20transit



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


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


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

Documents

Vision Around the Mountain Workshop 4 Meeting Summary