11/24/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Murray wondered about the direction of some of the changes and significant policy shifts necessary ~der a 30% alternative. Mr. Herbert answered that, under that split - combining alternatives 3 and 5 - the -- high transit assignment would imply land use patterns that would re-enforce transit. There are many policy questions involved in the process of how such things would be done - consulting neighborhood groups, etc. Mr. Herbert also understands the City Charter does not permit Eugene to allocate dollars directly to Lane Transit District in support of public transit. Therefore, some charter adjustment would be required; many legal and budgetary questions would need to be addressed. Mr. Williams, in referring to the projected 6.2% transit by 1980, wondered how moving from 6.2% in 1980 to 30% in the year 2000 could be accomplished. Mr. Herbert answered that LTD has made a five-year development program, and the projections in that indicate that, at the present rate, over 10% would be reached by the year 2000. However, if 30% is desired by general purpose governments, that challenge would be met by the transit district. Mr. Bonnett said he believes that an increase from 2.4% in 1975 to 6.2% in 1980 represents a rapid doubling time in ridership. If projected to the year 2000, he would end up with an annual growth rate of 6 to 7%. A 30% modal split would mean an annual growth rate of just under 15%. A change from 2.4% to 6.2%, and then a continuation of that growth rate, would bring the percentage well above 10% by the year 2000, said Mr. Bonnett. He wondered if Mr. Herbert could compare the percentage increments with what has been experienced the last four years. Mr. Herbert said that, during the last four years, the number of riders per day has increased from around 2000 to 11,000 or 12,000. That would indicate a multiplying of ridership by '5 to 6 times. In the short history of the transit district, it would be e quite impractical to project that short a curve for 25 years and expect much reliability from the end of it. The further into the future projections are made, the more suspect the project becomes. However, if an assignment were made by general purpose governments as to the target, the transit district would go to work and "do its best". Public hearing was opened. Mayor Anderson explained much written testimony has been received by Council and that the hearing is merely for the purpose of receiving testimony. Any action will be taken at a later date. (I-A-2) Pat Stinson, 595 E. 50th, professional engineer for the State of Oregon, but representing himself and friends, noted he has read the ESATS study and has come to some conclusions about it. He feels the approaches taken in the ESATS study have been too limited. He mentioned-taking the 10% trip reduction and applying it to all transportation, not just to the mass transit al ternati ves. That would result, it would seem to him, in one of the most obvious and attractive alternatives. Mr. Stinson continued further by referring to assumptions on the use of vehicles. The private vehicle, he said, is a major transportation use item, and an assumption has been made of a cost of l6f per mile for that vehicle. A mistake in that thinking, he thought, was that l6f is taken as a unit cost per mile that does not fluctuate with higher or lower use mileage throughout the year, which he thinks is incorrect. He said the vehicle costs per the report are made up of some numbers that are the same per year no matter e how much the vehicle is used. He noted that insurance costs, for instance, are basically the same even if usage is cut down by a certain percentage. Therefore, even when drastically cutting down automobile usage, some costs are still going to be incurred; and it would seem that the only possibility of savings is not to purchase or use the vehicle at all. ta/3 11/24/75 - 2