CC Minutes - 02/14/05 Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

difficulties in that there were only specific roadways and areas where the devices could to be operated, resulting in difficulty for operators to map out a course where the devices could be legally operated on roadways with a speed limit of 25 MPH or less, or roadways that had specific bike lanes. The majority of local roadways did not have dedicated bike lanes, citing Franklin Boulevard, and 6th and 7th avenues as examples. Councilor Ortiz said she had questions similar to those of Councilor Poling, noting in her ward, people used the devices for transportation. She said the proposed ordinance would be problematic for people who worked at Valley River Center who would have to walk the devices across the bridge. Sgt. Schulz suggested it may be possible to commute to a Park and Ride location, or a bus stop, and then use Lane Transit District (LTD) services. He added that sharing pedestrian areas or automobile areas presented safety issues, noting that the multi-use paths had traditionally been viewed as a sanctuary by those who wished to get around under their own power. Councilor Kelly said he would like an answer to the following questions before the council considered adoption of the ordinance. He noted there were two sets of conditions in the ordinance, the notification on sale that identified specific requirements for motorized scooters, and the broader prohibition on off-street bike paths. The prohibitions on what could be done with motorized assisted scooters came right out of State law, which defined motor-assisted scooters in a different place than it defined electric-assisted bicycles. He noted that under State law, an electric-assisted bicycle could be ridden on a 35 MPH street with no bike lane. His constituent wanted assurance that the first section of the ordinance was not intended to prohibit in Eugene only an electric-assisted bike being ridden on a 35 MPH street with no bike lane. Councilor Kelly commented that the ordinance had a clause that the prohibition on off-street paths would not apply to mobility-impaired individuals who needed a motorized device. He emphasized that it was important the mobility impairment be broadly defined to include situations where a medical condition would prohibit an individual from driving an automobile, but could safely use a scooter that did not go faster than 15 MPH. He expressed pleasure that the Human Rights Commission Accessibility Committee had been consulted and would be involved in drafting the administrative rules. He hoped there would be outreach that would publicize opportunities for people to provide input on the mobility impairment issue to the Accessibility Committee. Councilor Kelly said it was not his reading that SegWays would be allowed on the bicycle paths, and asked Sgt. Schulz to verify the State statute. Councilor Papd concurred with Councilor Kelly on mobility impairment issues. He suggested that the City Attorney review the language in 4.979(1)(e) to allow operation of the devices on private property. Councilor Papd reported that former Councilor Nancy Nathanson had previously noted that people valued many things in the community, and no one valued the multi-use paths more than he did. He also wanted to encourage the use of alternate forms of transportation, especially getting people out of their automobiles, and expressed concern, as had Councilor Poling and Councilor Ortiz, about running all motorized vehicles off of alternate ways to get through the community. Councilor Kelly continued Councilor Papd's comments, noting the conundrum of not wanting to put a 15 MPH scooter in the middle of the Ferry Street Bridge, while at the same time not wanting to put it on the sidewalk. He said it was important to take a specific look at critical missing bike lanes on major streets such as Martin Luther King Boulevard. He also suggested that if the off-street paths were removed, a focused MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 8 Regular Session