04/11/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Mr. Bill Guenzler noted there were several concerns regard- ing this decertification information. He said federal require- ments state that the metropolitan area needs a planning process dealing with certain elements to receive funding. He also noted that $700,000 per year are involved, that the funds would accrue up to two years, but would not be lost if a plan were adopted prior to the expiration of those two years; that $600,000 accrues to a transit district which operates a bus system; and the state would not fund any project which is federally funded. He said, in specifics, for the city it could affect the following projects: 1) the 30th and Hilyard intersection widening, although he had been officially told it would not be affected as it would have reached a sufficiently advanced state of development; and 2) the Valley River Bike Bridge would, in his opinion, not be affected; but that the transit operational assistance would. e He said the reason for the decertification was that federal regulations require that by June 30 a transportation systems management element be produced, which meant a list of projects and appropriations that could be made. For an unconditional certification, a metropolitan area would need a long-range plan and transportation systems management element, a trans- portation improvement program for three to five years. He noted he felt it would be desirable for the metropolitan area to make a single, consolidated response by all jurisdictions to this decertification letter. He said the important thing was that transportation assistance through the urban mass transit could be withdrawn and the city could be faced in some way with curtailing the existing transit system, either by reducing the number of runs, or reducing manpower. The alternatives, he noted, were as follows: 1) the metro- politan area could develop a transportation system management element immediately to get conditional certification in some way; 2) it could develop plans and accept some period of de- certification; or 3) it could challenge the certification. He noted the two major issues to be considered were: 1) the loss in transportation system has to be analyzed; and 2) that the Springfield City Council has recently changed its transit goals, although technical preparation has been ongoing for quite some time. The Council would have to determine whether it wanted to go along with the different transit goal or con- tinue ahead with the technical preparations that had been neve10ped to date. e Mr. Guenzler noted that Friday, April 1, the Metropolitan Area TranRportation C~mmittee would be meeting to consider alter- nntlves and ~ive advice on the various issues involved. He said perhaps a report of that meeting could be received by Cornmittee-of-the-Whole meeting, April 6. He noted again that he hoped the metropolitan area (Eugene, Lane County, and ~9~ 4/11/77 - IS