Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Schwetz presented a comparison of mobility among Portland, Salem, and the Eugene-Springfield area. <br />He said that the Eugene-Springfield area had half the congestion of most cities of comparable size, and <br />Portland, which was seven times larger, had 33 times the congestion of the Eugene-Springfield area. He <br />identified congestion implications as set forth in the Statewide Congestion Overview for Oregon. He said <br />that next steps included: <br /> <br />? <br /> Compile results from assessment of alternative solutions <br />? <br /> Develop proposal for possible changes to State’s mobility standards <br />? <br /> Identify possible local commitments to include in proposal <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Pryor, Mr. Schwetz said that projections would be revised within the <br />next two months to reflect elimination of the West Eugene Parkway. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Papé, Mr. Schwetz said the rating system meant from a volume over <br />capacity ratio standpoint that standards were established at a point where traffic could still move and the <br />State’s standards assumed that 80 percent or less was meeting standards on a facility like Beltline. He said <br />the State used a different measurement system than the local regional transportation plan, which used an A <br />through F rating system. <br /> <br />th <br />Mr. Papé remarked how the council’s identification of the West 11 Avenue corridor as a priority related to <br />other mobility needs that might be higher. Mr. Schoening said there were two approaches: capital <br />th <br />infrastructure such as improvements to Beltline and the corridor study of West 11 Avenue to consider <br />alternative transportation modes such as EmX. He said options included adding more capacity to the system <br />for all modes of travel and a different focus on the existing transportation system to achieve more capacity <br />such as access management. He felt there was the right mix of strategies. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé asked what the consequences would be if the City’s priorities were inconsistent with the OHP. <br />Mr. Schwetz said that the region was working with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to <br />ensure the consistency of any proposal presented to the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC), <br />although if the OTC determined a proposal was not consistent, it could decline to approve and require <br />certain mitigation for those facilities out of compliance with mobility standards. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé asked how managing land use to limit vehicular demand on State highways could be accomplished <br />since the passage of Ballot Measure 37. Mr. Schwetz said that balancing the interests of the State and <br />property owners would require negotiation among all of the interested parties. City Manager Taylor said <br />Ballot Measure 37 would have an impact, which was why local solutions were being considered from a land <br />use and transportation perspective and the legislature had commissioned the “big look” at the issue. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman commented that when congestion reached the point that it negatively affected the economic <br />viability of property people would be willing to negotiate in order to decrease congestion. She was pleased <br />that the AMS proposal would come to the council for approval before it went to the MPC. She said <br />Eugene’s lower congestion compared to similarly sized jurisdiction was also good news. She asked how <br />“peak” hour was defined with respect to congestion. Mr. Schwetz replied that the morning peak hour was <br />7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and the evening peak hour was 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman noted that much investment and infrastructure was predicated on peak hour congestion and <br />asked if all jurisdictions used the same standard. Mr. Schwetz replied that the peak hour definition was a <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 23, 2006 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />