12/04/1985 Meeting (3) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

She said the information presented in the slides had omitted the percentage of e trips that were through or commercial. She said the modelling process looked at trips according to purpose, and affect of alternative mode and transit usage was applied only to those trips internal to the system, so that approximately 40 percent of the total trips were not represented in the slide information. Ms. Andersen said the Ferry Street Bridge was a City of Eugene project, and funding was therefore the City's responsibility. She said federal and state opportunities were always being sought. Significant lead time was needed to evaluate and design the project, thus its inclusion in the second phase. She said the Valley River bridge was an alternative to a major improvement that would be required at the current Washington-Jefferson bridge, so the need was for overloads if some other crossing was not provided. Ms. Andersen said the comments from the Eugene Planning Commission regarding Sacred Heart attempted to respond to the hospital's concerns about parking and development in that area, and she encouraged review of those comments. Mr. Holmer asked whether it was possible to identify those projects in the short-term that constituted the $117 million deficit, suggesting that the plan should identify projects that would be built, in addition to those that would be desirable. Ms. Andersen said the deficit resulted from lack of an identified funding source for particular projects, and projections were made based on the level of funds currently available. She said it was possible an opportunity would exist to review the project list and to apply certain local, e state, or federal funding sources, but other projects might not meet the criteria or exceeded the level currently available or projected to be available. Mr. Holmer asked whether the list arrived at might be distorted by the availability of certain funds and would therefore not reflect what truly ought to be the priorities. Ms. Andersen said a certain amount of distortion did occur in capital improvements programming because of funding availability, and she said a similar problem might exist with the project list. Kevin Roberts, Springfield Traffic Administrator, voiced support for Ms. Andersen's comment concerning the transit goal. Mr. Roberts said the reasons the 30-30 connector project was not included in the TransPlan were that traffic was not expected to overload Main Street and South A Street; that improvements to the Eugene-Springfield highway would still be needed; and that the connector would go beyond the Urban Growth Boundary, encouraging growth in an area not designated for development in the Metro Plan. Mr. Rogers asked whether any analysis had been done of potential energy savings as a result of the 30-30 connector. Mr. Roberts said the number of vehicles redirected was not significant enough to offset the cost of building. Staff also responded that no consideration had been given to probable future development of the LCC Basin. Lane County Public Works Director John Goodson addressed concerns about the accuracy of population projections, saying the long-range transportation needs identified in TransPlan were based on land-use configurations in the Metro e MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials Hearing--TransPlan December 4, 1985 Page 12