04/12/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- Al Williams, Traffic Engineer, responded that LCOG recognizes the subplans and will take them into account, i.e. in vehicles assigned to the network. Overall, street network planning will reflect all of Eugene's goals - that is a key factor, he said, though it is suggested that pedestrian and paratransit goals be developed by the Eugene staff and incorporated into the plan itself or adopted as a subplan by the City Council. Mrs. Shirey wondered if Principle 7 could be rewritten to state that Eugene will develop and contribute plans for its particular goals. Dave Reinhard, Planning Engineer, felt it might suffice to direct staff to proceed along those lines concurrently with the regional plan. Mr. Murray, however, felt Eugene's concerns and the strength of its comrndtment should be on paper as well, and he read a statement he had drafted to that effect, outlining Eugene's comrndtment to bikes, pedestrian and paratransit modes, mentioning budgetary commdtments and requesting that status reports also include a report on those three concerns. Manager wondered if Mr. Murray was suggesting reducing Eugene's financial contribution by the amount of time and money contributed by the City to pedestrian, bike and paratransit planning. Mr. Murray responded it has always been the city's intent to include those elements and that its contribution to the development of a regional plan should include assurances that monetary support will fund those elements. e Assistant Manager's understanding is that LCOG is attempting to reach unanimity as to their role. Eugene has taken into account in budgeting that it will contribute its share to those functions handled by LCOG and then additional money into its own efforts. Traffic Engineer said LCOG's work program will outline the part each agency will play in the development - it is an ongoing process each year. Mr. Bradley's position is that bike, pedestrian and paratransit modes are regional concerns since facilities are shared. He feels that to address Eugene's concerns in a refinement study does not convey the intended meaning. Public Works Director called attention to the last paragraph of No. 6 which says that, when eval ua ting the need for street and highway and public transi t improvements, the trips to be carried by the three elements in question will be modeled simply by "removing them from the street and highway and transit network and considering the subsequent reduction in traffic". Mr. Keller does not feel a regional study can allow one jurisdiction to be adamant about their views, and LCOG must be having great difficul ty trying to determine what is feasible for all. It seems reasonable to him that concessions may have to be made for the benefit of the entire region. Assistant Manager said there did not seem to be any serious disagreement with Mr. Murray's draft but suggested, if acceptable, that he review it with staff and SUbsequently bring it back for final action. e Manager distributed a letter from the Chamber expressing disagreement with Levels of Service D & E. The Chamber notes that approving those levels allows for traffic congestion seriously impeding all vehicular movement. Level E, they feel, as the condition under which improvement would be considered, is far too excessi ve . I~O 4/12/76 - 17