Laserfiche WebLink
<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 <br />