01/12/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

to use the following percentages, for modes of travel other than the private auto, in arriving at the 30% reliance on alternatives to the auto recommended by Council: Transit-1St; Bicycle-S%; Pedestrian-S%; Paratransit-S%. Mr. Williams wondered if this type of breakd,own would still imply that a system would be developed to handle the same number as if it were 30% mass transit, the difference being that only half of the 30% would be ~ transit. e Planning Director could not answer precisely but said the attempt in giving percentages is to cevelop plans which will capture trips between zones in all modes. 30% of the trips between zones, other than truck trips, will be llDdeled in the master plan. Mr. Keller asked how percentages were arrived at for modes of travel other than mass transit. Planning Director said experimental work is being done on all the figures, the master plan to be prepared keeping the percentages in mind. Mr. Bradley wondered what it would take to have a 30% increase in mass transit could that be a realistic goal. Plartning Director responded staff~hnically does not have expertise to assess that possibility; 15% mass transit does give staff experts-something to work with. Mr. Murray expressed pleasure with staff's response, feeling it is compatible with earlier actions. He said Council's original I1Otion was adopted to place emphasis not on the number of people getting into busses but, rather, out of cars. It seems a nost important feature. He understands staff needs a finer percentage breakdown to develop a plan so it seems a good starting poit has been reached. Mr. Murray raised two points, however: 1) that the percentage breakdowns are only a starting point that could need revision at some' futUre point, -and 2) that the additional _5% breakdowns will 'require a program approach in the master pian.. - ,e Planning Director noted the percentages probably won't be uniform through all areas of the city. Councilman williams wondered if there are current figures on interzonal trips handled by bikes, pedestrians and paratransit. Traffic Engineer answered the plan development requires that each area have a portion of the plan devoted to methods of accomplishing goals so some figures on the magnitude of the various modes of travel will need to be obtained. Mr. Keller stated that, in developing a model tc;> reach goals - looking at other cities, etc. - input should be used which is most pertinent to Eugene. Mr. Bradley referred to the ESATS update, saying it spoke of mass transit and trip reduction - other alternatives such as carpooling were not mentioned. It seems that by accepting the refinement, the decision would really be to support a 15% increase in mass transit. Somehow the 30% decision Council made seems to have become lost. Mr. Murray felt that thinking to be a gross misinterpretation. He feels it essential to achieve 30% reliance on alternatives other than the private auto. For that reason, the 5% elements must be taken seriously with the plan reflecting definite programs to attempt to achieve those goals. Alternat:ives to the auto is the major goal - not simply a case of bus vs. auto. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to accept as a refinement to Council's earlier decision on transportation alternatives the percentage breakdowns as outlined in staff's January 2 memo; that is, 15% transit, S% bicycle, S% pedestrian and 5% paratransit. e ,1/12/i6 - 12 14