It’s enough to make strong project managers weep in their beer. Costs for most of the materials used in transportation projects are going up, up, up.
Jim Mayer gives us the ugly details, and the impact on contract bidding, in yesterday’s O.
How does that change the economics of the cost of congestion? Bike lanes are still a bargain…
23 responses to “Costs, Costs, Costs”
This will help ODOT and PDOT focus on maintaining existing roads and forget new ones. Yea!
A business with higher costs and less income will focus on increasing efficiency…i.e. transportation demand management…or go out of business. Is it time for layoffs at ODOT?
Is it time for layoffs at ODOT?
Perhaps long past time if you are talking about the folks involved in planning and new construction. ODOT does not have the capacity to maintain the existing roads it is responsible for and there is no likelihood it will in the future.
They need to recognize that the age of the highway is done and they are going to have to largely live with what they have. That means engineers who work on maintaining the existing capacity. I suspect that is a far less attractive and challenging job for most engineers than building new stuff.
You know, I’ve seen this same sort of story repeated across the country. The reasons why transportation construction costs are going up are mainly related to two things:
1) The cost of oil is going up, and oil is used to make asphalt, which is used to make most roads, and
2) The cost of steel is going up (due in large part to a massive construction boom — skyscrapers, roads, bridges, dams — in China), and steel is used for rebar, bridges, etc.
…and here’s my proposed solution:
In addition to Chris’s comment that bike lanes are still a bargain (unless, of course, you want that lane re-paved when it gets striped), there should be a fundamental re-examination of the economics of transportation construction.
Perhaps we rely too much on low-grade asphalt roads? Many of our asphalt roads are designed with only a 10-20 year lifespan per paving cycle. The Romans built some roads which are still going, 2000 years later, with the original pavement, and heavy traffic! Perhaps asphalt is just not the most sustainable solution for every street or other pavement need?
Some of Portland’s original cement/concrete streets have never been re-paved… and are still mostly useable 100 years later. I think it’s quite possible that, given modern engineering and materials science advances, we can come up with a concrete, fly-ash, cement or other stone-based solution for paving that will last much, much longer than asphalt, without the need for continual re-paving. We might even be able to figure out how to make it semi-permeable, as with the latest asphalt/rubber hybrid surfaces that allow the rain to soak through rather than puddle up on top!
Finally, I agree with Lenny — there should be a bigger focus on maintaining existing roads (and maintaining them to a higher standard, that is, putting slightly more effort into each re-paving with the goal of extending the time between paving cycles to… let’s shoot big … a century), rather than constructing new ones. Further, the state really lacks a statewide passenger rail system… wouldn’t building one to tie together a statewide bicycle network be a much more sustainable use of state funds?
Garlynn-
There is a lot of debate over whether asphalt versus concrete are better for highways. Asphalt has been cheaper while concrete is more durable. There are arguments over whether concrete’s durability pays for its increased cost.
Oregon is clearly not doing cost-effective maintenance. That is it is allowing roads to deteriorate until they require costly repairs that less costly regular maintenance would have prevented. They don’t have the money to do the maintenance and build all the new capacity being demanded.
Garlynn says “Some of Portland’s original cement/concrete streets have never been re-paved… and are still mostly useable 100 years later..”
Steel reinforcing has helped make concrete throughfares hold up better. You may observe that some older streets, even though concrete, have a lot of cracking and buckling..there was no reinforcement. OTOH, I-5 is holding up pretty well…the Metro area is concrete. However, ruts are gradually being worn down due to studded tires and heavy trucks. So concrete isn’t totally trouble-free. Some people may like the relative quiet of the freshly asphalted road–to me it’s like white bread.
I would guess that the more durable a surface is, as we might hope for, that the more glazed and slippery it will become, as it it is “polished” by passing tires. ( After all steel can be honed with leather.) Just add some auto fluids dripping on the pavement and some rain….Maybe technology will find us a “sticky” concrete surface that doesn’t wear out. Still, considering how quickly asphalt roads are repaved it seems concrete would be more cost effective; the labor cost in repaving has got to be high. I guess a concrete thorough fare would have to be torn up and repoured to make it like new, but so does a lot of asphalt surfacing.
My beef, once again, is that there seem to be perfectly fine roads and streets that get repaved. Since I drive them frequently enough, I fail to see the need to resurface them—yet other streets go on with dangerous potholes and bumps.
I agree with Chris, that bike lanes are the cheapest and they require neither a costly surface or roadbed, either. And let’s have AMTRAK with adequate bike storage available…. Or convenient loading of bikes onto aircraft; I would rather not partially disassemble mine before putting it on a Boeing.
Maybe the increasing costs will have a positive effect whereby people are not as ready to reinvent Portland. At some point, taking taxpayers for a ride with extravagant spending on couplets, transit makeovers, unnecessary bicycle infrastructure and esplanades must be slowed down. It is time for PDOT to get back to doing the job of maintaining the transportation infrastructure in place. Instead of frivolously dribbling transportation funds away on wasteful projects like curb extensions, transportation dollars could be better utilized for road projects that are placated on increased demand and connectivity.
So far at least one good thing has come from increasing construction costs – the decision to have the central fire station stay where it is. Such a prime piece of real estate should remain in the public domain. The property must not be reserved for just for a few wealthy people that could afford the high end housing proposed for the sight? Having the central fire station remain across the street from Water Front Park is good for public relations too. When activities take place in the park, the overhead doors can be rolled up and a fire engine pulled out to the sidewalk with firefighters greeting and educating the public on fire safety. Just having the fire engine visible is an attraction for children. That alone generates a positive sense of community with the fire department.
On your favorite summer day go out and measure the temp six feet off the ground over an asphalt road and do the same with a concrete road. The ask yourself how this imapcts the local temp.
And of course if we are not going to build any more roads then we should certainly open the transportation market to more providers, but then there is no reason is should be closed in the first place, except to protect a monopoly.
M.W.
Terry,
I’m not sure why you have such a vile reaction against all things good and decent when it comes to making the city more livable. However, curb extensions, bike lanes, etc. are not the reason why transportation budgets are experiencing inflation. Those things usually use concrete, which is not inflating as fast as asphalt, and in small amounts — so your rant on that topic is pretty much moot.
With regards to the fire station — I just read that it wasn’t high-end condos that were being planned for that site after the fire department moved out. It was a public market. Portland hasn’t had a central public market since before the Harbor Expressway wiped out the one that used to be located among the wharves on the waterfront — 50-some-odd years ago. Seattle has the Pike Place Market, San Francisco has the Ferry Building Market, and Portland would like to once again have a public market space of its own. That is, a kitchen to complement the living room (Pioneer Square) for the city. Now, the challenge is to find an alternate site that is similarly central. (I’m not convinced that this needs to be difficult…)
As for concrete buckling & cracking — yes, steel reinforcement has improved its durability. I wonder, however, if steel is the only potential material that can be used to reinforce concrete? Why not recycled plastic, for instance?
As for concrete being “polished” over time as it ages — I wonder if making a more porous concrete surface might help kill two birds with one stone, i.e. it allows water to seep through and the very act of making it porous also improves its ability to provide traction over its lifetime?
I’m thinking of two potential solutions here:
1) The concrete material itself is engineered to be more like swiss cheese than marble, so that the porosity allows water to seep through and creates a turbid surface to expose to tires, or
2) The concrete is laid in a manner that resembles cobblestones more than it resembles pancakes, and the filler material behaves more like sand than it does glass; that is, concrete is laid in millions of small cobble-pieces, and then filled in with a slightly different material (like mortar) that is porous. So, the end result is a surface that presents a hard running surface (the concrete bits) to bear the wear of the traffic, but also allows water to drain off between the hard bits, and because of the inconsistent nature of the surface, provides more traction.
Basically, re-creating the old stone roads with modern materials…
Anyways, my point is that with some out-of-the box thinking, there are creative solutions to this issue.
U know speaking of increased steal costs, I went by the base of the tram recently and realized where all those extra millions started getting sucked up. That thing is freaking impressive. Massive huge hulking strands of steal everywhere!
It definately answered where one of those cost overruns came from.
People should be glad those prices are up, it’s balancing out with China cuz we’re starting to slowly even up that trade imbalance! :)
Garlynn
“I’m not sure why you have such a vile reaction against all things good and decent when it comes to making the city more livable.”
The first order of business to make any place livable is affordability, not aesthetics, not amenities. That also means taxes must be kept in check and balanced with everybody paying their fare share. That includes user charges for bicycle infrastructure, transit riders picking up a greater share of transit costs and the elimination of most property tax abatements. Livable can also be described as quality of life. However, quality of life is a totally subjective term and means different things to different people. For some people it may be a car, some a bike and some transit. However, in Portland and Oregon, the government uses tax codes and other controls attempting to define what everybody’s quality of life should look like. I certainly would not call a disagreement with that socialistic behavior and idealistic philosophy as vile. It is more like objecting to placing limits on, and/or an undue price for our freedom of choice. I consider many of the projects the City is engaged with as over priced aesthetics that do little or nothing to improve my quality of life, or even make Portland a more livable place.
“With regards to the fire station — I just read that it wasn’t high-end condos that were being planned for that site after the fire department moved out. It was a public market.”
You are correct that a public market was planned on the site, on the ground floor. The high end condos would be above the market and the main reason developers wanted the central fire station site. The money that was to be made was with the high end condos that would have a view of the river, not the public market which could be located elsewhere.
“Portland hasn’t had a central public market since before the Harbor Expressway wiped out the one that used to be located among the wharves on the waterfront — 50-some-odd years ago.”
The building you referred to was also home to the Oregon Journal newspaper after the public market vacated it. The Harbor Expressway that was located on the back side of the building between the building and the river was not the reason the market left the site. The center of activity in downtown Portland had moved away from the river. The public market moved too. The market in the 1950’s and 1960’s was located in buildings on both sides of SW Yamhill Street between 4th and 5th Avenues, where Pioneer Place now exists. The old Public Market/Journal Building was torn down to make way for Waterfront Park after standing vacant for several years. To me it was a crime to tear down such a stately building. It had two neon clad spires that reflected on the river at night and was a strong building that originally had parking on the roof. One example for use could have been opening up the walls on the first floor for a covered park area while converting the upper floor(s) to public meeting rooms. Such a building could have also been used for Saturday Market or even a public market today. But like so many other historic structures in this City, it was fattened without considerations for future uses. I continue to believe this city has no foresight and just wants to spend taxpayer dollars on feel good projects for the short term.
Furthermore, the people that do not dance in the same chorus line or sing to the same tune as the desires of City government are censored from participating in the citizen advisory process. No freedom of speech exists in early stages of planning when it counts. One such example is all the excuses for not having direct motor vehicle representation on CACs. I find that discriminatory when all other modes of transport have direct representation while motor users continue to carry the burden of transportation taxes.
Furthermore, the people that do not dance in the same chorus line or sing to the same tune as the desires of City government are censored from participating in the citizen advisory process. No freedom of speech exists in early stages of planning when it counts. One such example is all the excuses for not having direct motor vehicle representation on CACs. I find that discriminatory when all other modes of transport have direct representation while motor users continue to carry the burden of transportation taxes.
Terry, you may have a point about representation on the CACs, but to use the term “censorship” goes too far.
I’ve gone to more CAC meetings and other public meetings than most people could probably stand, and if I’ve notice one thing more than anything else, its that staffers and community relations personnel, armed with materials and eager to answer questions, as well as architects, planners, managers, and engineers, outnumber members of the public who actually show up. I’m often the only one who speaks, and I don’t always get my way. But I am always treated with respect and I am never overtly dismissed, and as one person I have made headway on my core issues.
I do agree that the process tends to favor the conventional wisdom of city official and planners, but this will never change if people don’t show up.
To use one of my pet issues as an example, the new transit shelters for the mall were slated to be smaller and far less functional than the current shelters. This went on for meeting after meeting. But after I presented many printed, illustrated reports and gave much commentary, and (probably more impactful than me) the disabled community continued to make point after point, the design was finally changed.
I still don’t agree with everything that came out of the process. The lost of most of our existing shelters will be a bad thing for the city, in my opinion. But I do feel I made much headway, in cooperation with others, and I am absolutely certain that if I hadn’t been there and if one or two other people hadn’t been critically involved in the process, none of the progress would have been made at all.
People need to show up for these things, and they need to speak strongly but not in outrage and need to speak constructively and be willing to accept that they won’t get everything they want. I know that the process doesn’t always work, I’m sure that opponents of the Tram from the lair hill neighborhood in particular feel that the process doesn’t work, but I think a big part of the problem is that people simply assume that they can’t make a difference, that they won’t be heard, and that they won’t show up.
The political fallout from the Tram process did not stop the tram, but it has been cited as a main reason why the Fire Station One project got axed… in aggregate, people do still make a difference.
Come to the meetings! If you can’t get time off work, find someone who can represent your constituency! Even it if it is to come to every meeting and restate the case why a non-bike-riding non-transit-using motorist position should be added to transportation stakeholder committees. Come and state it every time, firmly but politely, bring enough friends, and sooner or later you can make a difference. You may not actually get that seat opened on a committee, but you can keep your group’s goals active in the minds of decision-makers.
But the firmness of conviction must be delivered without contempt. I remember a Transit Mall CAC meeting I attended where a guy showed up who was just livid about the coming changes, months after the decisions he was complaining about had been hashed out in other public meetings. He was literally shouting. He was absolutely sure everyone on the committee and in attendance was going to kill Transit as we know it in Portland. At one point he demanded to know if anyone in the room had even ridden TriMet in the past week. Everyone raised their hand. This surprised the guy, but didn’t stop him from shouting.
All the attendees at the meeting smiled and nodded and noted his comments for the record (officially the record notes this person stating that the whole project was a “big mistake” and removed any expletives) and then went on with the meeting. He made absolutely no headway because his attitude from the very beginning was that people didn’t care.
People _do_ care, but they have different priorities and different sets of ideals than others. Frankly, I’ve run into people (I’m not naming names) on committees whose ideas I think are just nuts. I’m sure they think the same of me. But I’ve been listened to because I state my case, give my facts, show my diagrams, draw my analogies, and don’t act as though people don’t care. Sometimes I find an angle that works, sometimes I don’t.
I’m not ready to call the public process a failure or a sham. Not until people really start showing up in numbers and representing their viewpoints… For example, on the controversial issue of the serpentine design on the mall and the auto lane, if the people who opposed that had shown up in vast numbers at the meetings that counted, and the design was still chosen, I’d say there was a right to complain. But in fact the proponents of the auto lane (and therefore the serpentine design) outnumbered opponents 2:1. And these were very well publicized meetings. I even got postcards from TriMet at my address in Corvallis back in the day about this stuff.
If you’re not on a mailing list, get on one! Call the agencies you’re most concerned about, get ahold of their community relations people, and get on the email and snail mail lists! Once you’re on, you’ll stay on, believe me…
TriMet just had a big open house about Washington County Commuter Rail. It wasn’t in some stuffy boardroom, it was out in the open at Bridgeport Village, right in the center with half a dozen staffers and hundreds of handouts and big posters. Most of the info has also been on the web for years. And yet I’m sure that after final planning is done and construction starts, people will still complain about not being consulted and government run amok.
– Bob R.
Re; durable, non-slip cocncrete surfaces. One technique that has emerged is to hatch lines perpendicular to the lane; I’m not sure what tool is used to produced those grooves about a half inch apart. So if the wearability of a concrete surface was improved, some sort of pattern of striations might be a way to maintain a non-skid surface. Smaller aggregate might also help; with large aggregate much more natural stone (slippery) is revealed as the concrete-and-sand binder wears away. There are different types of sand used in concrete mixes, some much more coarse. I don’t know how many formulas for highway paving there are; maybe someone has already found a more durable–and safe–composition.
I’m not ready to call the public process a failure or a sham. Not until people really start showing up in numbers and representing their viewpoint
I think you are mistaking cause and effect. People often stop participating when they come to the conclusion that their participation is not contributing to the results. They also end up very frustrated and sometimes that frustration shows.
The reality of the advisory processes for transportation projects is that the committees are hand-picked. They do not include people who are likely to support a “no-build” option and once they have spent months considering solutions, doing nothing is never an option.
The staff of transportation agencies are professionals who spent years in schools and work with these issues every day. Many of them think with all that training they know what the best solution is and try to steer the process in that direction. They may or may not believe that the public’s ideas have anything of value to offer. And the agency leadership is often going to measure the success of a citizen participation process by how closely its results match the professional staff’s preferred solution.
As a reasult, the information provided by all those consultants at open houses is often slanted toward their preferred solution. During the I-5 task force discussions the advisory committee was told that ramp meters would result in reduced congestion on local streets in north and northeast portland. When that information was challenged at the committee level, the staff said that statement was a mistake. Nonetheless, the very same bullet point was included on wall charts at an open house the next week.
At that same open house there was a chart showing that widening I5 at Delta Park would not result in lower traffic counts at the Rose Quarter and ont he Fremont Bridge. The staff had no explanation for this until it was apparent they had included increases in transit service and “TDM” from the RTP in their models. In other words, they assumed substantially fewer trips by auto. Its wasnt; surprising that the result was less congestion.
To be clear, the leadership at ODOT and WASHDOT are not interested in a solution to the I5 bridge problems that does not include a major new construction project in their budget. Those are the folks that hire the consultants. A citizen participation process that delivered a recommendation for only transit or local bridge investments, or a no-build recommendation, would not be seen as a success. It certainly would not help the consultants get a contract for future citizen participation.
This is not some sort of democratic process. There are huge personal financial and professional stakes in the outcome. And those are rarely on the table openly. So the impression that there are hidden agendas that actually determine the outcome if often true. Citizens only have useful role if they have ideas to improve or tweak those agendas, not if they oppose the central direction the agency wants to go. Changing that direction requires political pressure, not polite advice.
Frankly, if you are opposed to the likely outcome of a citizen participation process, participating in the discussion is only adding legitimacy to the recommendations that are made. You are far better off rallying public opposition the recommendations once they get to the political leadership. The Mount Hood freeway was not defeated by convincing ODOT it was a bad idea. It was only after the political leadership rejected it, that real alternatives could be considered.
Just to be clear. I think it is important that citizens participate in transportation planning. Their ideas often make projects substantially better than if it was left to the engineers. But if you are opposed to a project, the citizen participation process is not the place to influence that decision. You will frustrate both yourself and the people on the committee who are trying to come up recommendations.
Frankly, if you are opposed to the likely outcome of a citizen participation process, participating in the discussion is only adding legitimacy to the recommendations that are made. You are far better off rallying public opposition the recommendations once they get to the political leadership. The Mount Hood freeway was not defeated by convincing ODOT it was a bad idea. It was only after the political leadership rejected it, that real alternatives could be considered.
I disagree with this statement. If you fundamentally oppose the direction an agency is taking, don’t give them political ammunition to say “we held meetings and nobody ever voiced opposition to the idea.”
Effective public involvement involves applying pressure at all levels of engagement, _both_ before and after higher-level politicos get involved.
I don’t argue against the notion that agencies, staff, contractors etc. come to the table with agenda, and that this agenda isn’t always fully or properly disclosed.
I’ve been involved in fights on far more important issues that were completely stacked against my cause, and perseverance paid off. I’ve also been on the receiving end of some spectacular defeats and encounters with decision-makers who just positively couldn’t “get it”. But I don’t stop participating and I am very careful when to use the word “Censorship” and “Sham”. Lack of full inclusion does not equal censorship. Lack of full inclusion is a bad thing, but I’ve seen real, literal censorship several times in my life, up close and personal, and its not the same thing.
Regarding Terry’s specific point about motorist representation on committees, I asked Terry in another thread for a list of criteria for what would make a satisfactory motorist representative, but didn’t see a reply. Even though we disagree on just about everything transportation-spending-wise, if Terry can come up with a good, politically neutral case as to why a specific motorist seat should be included in transportation committees, I will back Terry’s proposal with my own comments (for what its worth) in the appropriate forum.
– Bob R.
Terry, Your statement “The old Public Market/Journal Building was torn down to make way for Waterfront Park after standing vacant for several years”, is not completely accurate. It was torn down to widen Harbor Drive to six lanes. Only later, after Riverfront for People rallied opposition to expanding Harbor Drive, did ODOT decide that it was not needed after I-405 and the Fremont Bridge were competed.
don’t give them political ammunition to say “we held meetings and nobody ever voiced opposition to the idea.”
I don’t think there is any “political ammunition” there. In fact, its an admission that the process didn’t work to vet the idea completely, leaving the political leadership without any cover. Far more powerful political ammunition is the statement “our citizen advisory committee considered that option and decided this was a better way to go.” It puts the politician in the role of rejecting the committee’s advice rather than considering new information. That is certainly what happened with the Mount Hood freeway.
But I don’t stop participating and I am very careful when to use the word “Censorship” and “Sham”. Lack of full inclusion does not equal censorship
I agree. The process is not a “sham” simply because it doesn’t consider every option or all input. But it is a mistake to think that citizen participation is designed for citizens. Its designed as a way for the decision makers to gather information.
The only power citizens have in citizen participation is the wisdom of their advice and their ability to persuade people. With elected officials, they have the power of voting. If they have enough people who agree with them, or contribute to their election in other ways, they will get full consideration of their point of view. whether it conforms to the agencies’ agendas or not.
The only power citizens have in citizen participation is the wisdom of their advice and their ability to persuade people. With elected officials, they have the power of voting. If they have enough people who agree with them, or contribute to their election in other ways, they will get full consideration of their point of view. whether it conforms to the agencies’ agendas or not.
On this point I completely agree.
– Bob R.
“I think you are mistaking cause and effect. People often stop participating when they come to the conclusion that their participation is not contributing to the results.”
This is becoming increasingly true. Personally, even though I make an effort to testify at public hearings when I can, and when the subject is one I feel I have a stake in, many of the hearings themselves are not much more than window dressing and a formality in that decisions have been already made, but not just voted on.
As for the CAC process, that too has become extremely flawed. I served and eventually chaired one of the first Portland area Citizen Advisory Committees in the 1970s set up to study and make major transportation recommendations. Yet in the late 1990s, when the first studies started involving Sandy Boulevard, I attended almost all the public meetings even taking time off work to hear a consultant from the Midwest speak. I applied to be a member of the CAC and had to take an opinion poll. Eventually I received a letter that advised me I had not been selected for the committee. I firmly believe I was not selected because my answers were not directly in step with what the planners had already decided what they wanted to do on Sandy. In addition to the City, I have also had similar results when applying for at least one Metro CAC and had to take an opinion test. I consider these polls and tests censorship. As for the Sandy project, I continued to go to public meetings and go through the routine of marking on maps and filling out comment forms. I objected to the curb extensions being planned as did several other people who attended these meetings. Basically these concerns were ignored by City staffers.
Since the first of this year, I have spoken twice in person with the City Project Manager of an upcoming study that involves a street five blocks from my home. I even advised the City Project Manager about a study done in 1993 on a portion of that same street that I had been directly been involved in and she was unaware of. I again wanted to be involved and I was assured I would be. I also became re-engaged with my neighborhood association on another (non-transportation) issue. I was invited to join the transportation committee by a board member and be involved with the street study. Currently, I have heard nothing about the status of the study. My thinking is at this point the City wants and possibly has already made the decision to add curb extensions to this street, which I oppose, and for that reason, I have not been notified of any undertakings of the study. If this is true, once again I would call it censorship because it is certainly not based on qualifications.
Terry –
I applaud you for sticking with it, even if we disagree on the issues.
If you don’t mind revealing details, is your neighborhood Rose City Park? (I ask because you knew a lot about the area around Normandale Park). I was on the board of the neighborhood association for a couple of years, and I am currently the webmaster: http://www.rcpna.org
If the street you are talking about is within RCPNA boundaries, I’d love to hear more about it.
Thanks,
Bob R.
“I objected to the curb extensions being planned as did several other people who attended these meetings. Basically these concerns were ignored by City staffers.”
I think it is important to distinguish between being ignored and not having your advise taken. There are many people who support curb extensions because they reduce the distance pedestrians have to cross the street and reduce traffic speeds closer to the legal limit for the street. There are very few streets that would not benefit from curb extensions.
That said, it is admittedly sometimes difficult to tell when one’s advice is ignored and when it simply isn’t taken because others disagree.
Since global warming is such a hot issue those of you who are interested in the “cost’ of asphalt may wish to look further at the item below that discusses urban heat island.
Enjoy.
M.W.
“Dark materials absorb more heat from the sun–as
anyone who has worn a black t-shirt on a sunny day
knows. Black surfaces in the sun can become up to
70°F (40°C) hotter than the most reflective white
surfaces. Roads and parking lots are frequently
paved with black asphalt concrete (commonly called
“asphalt”) and other dark materials that absorb
most of the sunlight that falls upon them. The
energy of the sunlight is converted into thermal
energy and pavements get hot, heating the air
around them and contributing greatly to the heat
island effect.
http://eande.lbl.gov/HeatIsland/Pavements/
Bob,
You are correct. George Walker and I represented RCP on the Center Land Use Committee for the 60th & Glisan project. Center was very proactive and was developing concepts prior to the City acquiring the property. One of the decisions made at that time was to shift the development study area from all around the Max station , concentrate development on the westside of 60th, and exclude the eastside residential areas which many residents objected to. The revised concept study area included the warehouse district near Normandale Park, and if I remember correctly, the blocks between Glisan and the Banfield west to 52nd. An architectural firm that had offices in Old Town was also om board and produced some concept drawings for the study area. I believe there was some City TOD study funding to pay the architect.
As for the 60th and Glisan project itself, there are three specific details I remember that came directly out of the committee; have a day care center within the project (my suggestion), save the oak trees and the lawn facing Glisan, and aligning the vehicle entrances on 60th with the street grid on the eastside. All were incorporated into the project.
Also, just for the record, if you take a look in the last RCP newsletter, there is a piece I wrote against closing the school. I had testified at the school board hearings and was asked to make the contribution to the newsletter. The early pictures of the school also came from me.