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