11/24/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

'-~ - -- M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL November 24, 1975 - Adjourned meeting - from the November 1~, 1975, regular meeting - of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on November 24, 1975, in the Council Chamber with the following Council members present: Neil Murray, Gus Keller, Wickes Beal, Tom Williams, Ray Bradley, D. W. Hamel and Edna Shirey. Eric Haws was absent. I - Public Hearings A. ESATS - Continuation from November 3, 1975, joint hearing between City Council and Planning Commission members. (Planning Commission members in attendance: Ken Reeder, Howard Bonnett, Alan Maxwell, Susan Franklin). (Time limit: 90 minutes) (I-A-l) Mr. Dan Herbert, chairman of Lane Transit District, was present to discuss the differences between a 10% modal split and a 30% split. He advised that the District was not making a recommendation on one approach or another but was merely giving information on the probable effects of Council decisions in selecting alternatives to assess for public transit. The Lane Transit District has decided, he said, that the direction transportation should go in the City is a decision for general purpose governments. Mr. Herbert showed graphs indicating that ridership has increased, from 1970 to the present, to the point that mass transit trips now represent 2.4% of all trips in the metro area. Projecting that growth rate would put public transit at 6.2% by 1980. Mr. Herbert, in discussing short-range goals, explained that, with 10% mass transit - combining alternatives 2 and 5 - a continued steady growth could be expected between now and 1980. With 30% mass transit, there would be a period of intense investigation by the transit district of e new technology, new tax resources and new policies. For local governments, under 10% transit, there could be expected an increased emphasis on mass transit as has been seen over the last five years but no radical new policies. Under the 30% split, local government would need to prepare and start implementing policies for a major emphasis on public transit in the area. As far as the public is concerned, it would take four or five years - even under the urgency of a high transit split - before vehicles would start showing up on the streets so it would be basically a continuation of the kind of growth seen over the last fi ve years. There is a re-examination time built into the process at five-year intervals, Mr. Herbert added, which is particularly crucial under a 30% transit split. No one really has a clear idea of the detailed kind of policies that need to be 'addressed under a very high transit split at this time and much policy work would be required. As to long-range goals, Mr. Herbert explained there are, striking differences between a 10% and a 30% split. Under the 10% alternative, there would be conttnued steady increases to the year 2000. Under the 30% alternative, Lane Transit District would be researching and implementing new technology and high performance systems. Local government would need to consider public transit as a high priority issue regarding policy formulation, planning, and financing. It would also involve a major change in most people's transportation habits. Mr. Herbert wishes to avoid leaving an impression that a 10% transit split would be easy, but he also did not want to convey an impression of the difficulty of the 30% split that would "scare" everyone. That split, he said,' e is technically possible. It would require that policy issues be addressed and tied together by the various legs - the transit district and federal, state, county, and city agencies. Lane Transit District can carry its share, he said, but not alone. ~/2. 11/24/75 - 1