04/12/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Murray noted there is nothing in the principles to address earlier agreement on correcting violations of the 1990 Plan, particularly in terms of major arterials dividing neighborhoods. ~ Mayor Anderson suggested that, rather than try to make material modifications, it ~hould be remembered the plan will have to be adopted. The record does reflect posi tions taken, and he does not envision a staff deliberately overlooking: what appears to be the trend. He would encourage moving forward now toward uni versal adoption. It was understood Mr. Murray's draft would be revier.red . . ~" w~th staff, along w~th language.of Principal No.7, and broug.ht back .t:or March 31 COmmJ.ttee meeting. .LI considerat:ion at Corom 3/24/76 Approve 12 Principles for Development of Metro Area Transportation Plan - Report on the 12 principles was distributed to Council March 10. Some rewording proposed by Mr. Murray has been reviewed by staff, along wi th the language of principle No. 7, and redraft developed by staff has been distributed to Council. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to adopt proposed rewording of Principle 7 as suggeste~ by staff. Motion carried unanimously. Corom 3/31/76 Approve Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that, at each point during the ESATS process that the Ci ty CowlCi1 receives a report of progress, that report must include a Eugene staff report on the development or plans for bikes, pedestrians and paratrarisi t. Mr. Murray clarified that the schematic shown to Council outlined that, at various points along the way in developing the Plan, reports would be brought to Council. It is at those times that he is requesting reports on plans for bikes, pedestrians and paratransi t. - Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. Councilman Williams expressed the opinion that Level of Service E is not what the Ci ty should use as a planning tool for determining when to consider improving a thoroughfare; "E" had been defined in the principles as the level at which congestion would warrant street improvement plans. He feels that Level D should perhaps be the level at which improvement is considered. Mr. Murray disagreed, feeling that testizrr::my he has heard would indicate the communi ty does not want to move in the direction Hr. Williams suggests. Councilman Williams responded that, for p.lanning purposes, a nearly impossible level of congestion would have to be reached before planning any street improvement and that seems an incredible disservice to the communi ty . Movement throughout the city would be severely restricted, he said. Mayor Anderson shared ME. Williams' concern; "We are talking about planning and not implementation", he said, and it would seem a disservice to avoid even planning until congestion exceeds Level E. Mr. Guenzler, LCOG, in describing Level E, noted that as volume increases 'the speed slows .down until it reaches a point where traffic flow is extremely unstable, at least for that section of the street. Any disturbance at all would create a stop and go situation. In long-range planning, he said, some streets would be projected to be in that category. It would be only for - ~ 4/12/76 - 18 l''ll