09/24/1984 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

II. PUBLIC HEARINGS e A. Recommendations on the Evaluation Report for the T-2000 Plan (memo, background information distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Kirk McKinley of the Planning Department presented the staff report, stating that staff was request- ing feedback from the City Council on the input to be used in the transporta- tion computer modeling for the T-2000 Plan Update. Based on that feedback and direction, staff will perform the modeling, identify traffic overloads, and develop methods to alleviate those overloads. Mr. McKinley said staff expected the draft Transportation Plan Update to be ready for review in spring 1985. Referring to the L-COG memorandum of September 6, 1984, he said that consensus had been reached on the issues of Land Use, Alternative Modes, and Level of Service by the Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County planning commis- sions and the Lane County Roads Advisory Committee. Addressing the two issues on which consensus was not reached, he then reviewed the recommendations of the four bodies on Transit and Trip Making as reported in the September 19, 1984, Planning and Public Works memorandum to the City Council. He stated that Dave Reinhard (Public Works), John Replinger (L-COG), Roger Rutan (Planning Commission), and Stefano Viggiano (LTD) were present to answer any questions of the council. In response to a question by Councilor Holmer regarding the T-2000 Plan, Mr. McKinley said that staff was attempting to develop a new name for the plan to emphasize that the plan was to serve the metropolitan population rather than a specific year. In response to another question, Mr. McKinley said e that council was free to question any of the five issues addressed in the Evaluation Report. The public hearing was opened. There being no testimony presented, the public hearing was closed. Councilor Obie asked how the City Council recommendations will dovetail with the recommendations of Springfield and Lane County. Mr. Reinhard responded that the council could either modify the recommended figures to reach a consensus with the other elected bodies or staff could use the various recom- mended numerical figures as input for the computer model. In response to a request for clarification on the difference between the household and per capita trip making rates, Mr. McKinley distributed a graph illustrating the two levels. As an example, he said that a household might generate 16 trips per day while an individual would generate only a small portion of that figure, regardless of the household makeup. He said that staff foresaw household size decreasing in the future while the number of households increased. He said that staff believed that the number of trips by a household would be greater than the per capita rate. In response to a question by Councilor Ehrman regarding the three-tiered approach recommended for the Transit issue, Mr. Rutan said he did not person- ally agree with the recommendation of the Eugene Planning Commission but that - MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 24, 1984 Page 2