07/16/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Eugene and existing conditions. He noted proj~ctions m~de in c~njunction with Lane Transit District showed an expected ~ncrease ~n translt usage. However, he said, that increase would not significantly change the demand for improvement of the 30th and Hilyard intersection. The ESATS up~ate, . he said, would not have a direct bearing on this project nor would It change materially the environmental impact statement prepared. He said that if the Council agreed with the statement it should be fonvarded to the proper agencies. If it is not forwarded, there are two cho.ices _ wait for the ESATS update or decide not to make the improvement. Councilwoman Shirey recognized the intersection t"as a problem. Hm.'ever, she felt there was not enough information available with regard to Lane Transit District plans. Also, she had calls from people who said they were willing to be held up in traffic at the intersection rather than have Ira big change," and for that reason alone she felt the project should wait. She expressed concern too about the ability of pedestrian and 'bike traffic to cross five lanes. She thought there should be alternatives presented that would have lesser impact. She asked whether the funds would be lost if the project wasn't constructed. David Reinhard, public works planning division, said the project would have to be under contract and underway by June 30, 1978 or the funds would be lost. He referred to design alternatives in Section IV of the statement which he said had been discussed but would not accomplish anything in terms of providing additional capacity. He also referred to the section concerning improvement of mass transit (Section IV-B-2) and said the Lane Transit District staff agreed with the public works staff that current projections and information available indicate increased transit use will not substitute for the proposed improvement. He cited other statistics in the impact statement with regard to mass transit ridership and its 4It effect on traffic demands. Assistant Manager noted that the statement was received by LCOG yesterday (June 24) in a transportation meeting where it was indicated Lane Transit was not looking at the 30th and Hilyard intersection as a site for a trans- fer point 'although it was considering a couple of places in that general area. He didn't think there should be particular concern about some specific design being built into this intersection to provide for a transfer point, there would be more study and expansion of the transit system before that would have to be considered. Al Williams, traffic engineer, added that the intersection in the five-year transit plan was not identified as a major transfer point. Even the two street stop points at this intersection should it be widened were "further away." He assured the Council that tfie traffic engineering and Lane Transit staffs "were not operating in a vacuum." Also, the Transit staff was very much involved in the ESATS update. Councilman Murray thought sometimes there was not enough boldness in trying to promote genuine alternatives. He wondered whether it wouldn't be better to create in the 30th and Hilyard area a "park-and-ride" facility and provide shuttle service to origin and destination points - if enough finances were ever accrued. Assistant Manager said copies of a Lane Transit District report on its development program through 1980 would be distributed at the next LCOG meeting and would also be given to the Council. The report, he said, indi- cated project expenditures through 1980 almost twice the amount of revenues. ~ Councilwoman Beal expressed a feeling that some statements made in the report were contrary to each other. Councilman Bradley said he could not agree with the statement in the EIS (page 8) that general growth was beyond local or even state control. He thought growth could be controlled. Also he thought LCOG 1973 projections should not be the basis for deter- 3<).0 7/16/75 - 7