07/22/1981 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e that the T-2,000 Plan establishes that a certain percentage of automobile traffic should be transferred to other modes. He asked if there was any infor- mation available to indicate that this project would help reach the goals to implement the T-2,000 Plan. Mr. Teitzel stated that no calculations have been done as to whether this will reduce automobile traffic. However, in this project, staff is trying to shorten the distance by bicycle in order to encour- age people to use alternative modes of transportation. Mr. Lindberg indicated that he would like staff to come back with a qualitative analysis. Jim Hanks, Traffic Engineer, stated such projects are covering new territory. There are not many places that have had bicycle diversion. Since the Greenway Bike Bridge was built, that has reduced the number of car trips by about 500 per day. This project would allow people to go from the Spyglass development and save time by riding bicycles. There is no tool that can be used that would show what amount of traffic would be reduced. There are 100 to 200 people using a dead-end path now. If it were an established bicycle path, bicycle traffic could increase but there is no way to quantify that increase or decrease in auto-traffic. Mr. Lindberg suggested looking at the demographic characteristics of the neighborhood. Younger people seem to ride bicycles more than older people do. Mr. Gleason indicated that a study could be devised. Staff assumes that more trips would be taken by bicycle rather than by car but no one knows exactly how many. In regard to the property rights, Mr. Lindberg stated that condemnation is a serious matter. It should be done with a great deal of sensitivity. Although this project has been in the Bicycle Master Plan for a good length of time, there is no clear citizen involvement in this process and there is some confusion as to who was informed that this path would be developed e and whether this knowledge was conveyed to the owners prior to or following the construction of a house on that site. Mr. Teitzel stated that during the development of the Bicycle Master Plan, property owners were not notified individually although the neighborhood groups were notified and people in those groups had a chance to respond. Before he started constructing his house, Mr. Ward was approached to allow City staff to survey for a bike path. Mr. Teitzel doubts Mr. Ward was told directly there would be a bike path there, though. He was not told there would be a path until after his house was built. Mr. Lindberg asked if it was correct that Mr. Ward did not know the bicycle path would go through yet it was included in the budget. Mr. Tietzel responded that that is correct. Ms. Schue stated that although she had missed the public hearing, that she toured the property, has read all the background material, and has read the minutes of that original meeting. She clarified the use of "eminent domain" as being a "forced sale." Someone owns the property and the City is consider- ing buying it from him, although he does not want to sell but she emphasized that the City ~ giving the owner money for the property. Mr. Obie stated that the issues are emotional as well as factual. There could be a strong argument for putting a street there, but that would have an impact on the entire neighborhood. The bicycle path would have certain effects on adjacent property which could be positive or negative. The staff report indicates that e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 22, 1981 Page 10