CC Minutes - 10/23/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Schwetz presented a comparison of mobility among Portland, Salem, and the Eugene-Springfield area. He said that the Eugene-Springfield area had half the congestion of most cities of comparable size, and Portland, which was seven times larger, had 33 times the congestion of the Eugene-Springfield area. He identified congestion implications as set forth in the Statewide Congestion Overview for Oregon. He said that next steps included: ? Compile results from assessment of alternative solutions ? Develop proposal for possible changes to State’s mobility standards ? Identify possible local commitments to include in proposal In response to a question from Mr. Pryor, Mr. Schwetz said that projections would be revised within the next two months to reflect elimination of the West Eugene Parkway. In response to a question from Mr. Papé, Mr. Schwetz said the rating system meant from a volume over capacity ratio standpoint that standards were established at a point where traffic could still move and the State’s standards assumed that 80 percent or less was meeting standards on a facility like Beltline. He said the State used a different measurement system than the local regional transportation plan, which used an A through F rating system. th Mr. Papé remarked how the council’s identification of the West 11 Avenue corridor as a priority related to other mobility needs that might be higher. Mr. Schoening said there were two approaches: capital th infrastructure such as improvements to Beltline and the corridor study of West 11 Avenue to consider alternative transportation modes such as EmX. He said options included adding more capacity to the system for all modes of travel and a different focus on the existing transportation system to achieve more capacity such as access management. He felt there was the right mix of strategies. Mr. Papé asked what the consequences would be if the City’s priorities were inconsistent with the OHP. Mr. Schwetz said that the region was working with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to ensure the consistency of any proposal presented to the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC), although if the OTC determined a proposal was not consistent, it could decline to approve and require certain mitigation for those facilities out of compliance with mobility standards. Mr. Papé asked how managing land use to limit vehicular demand on State highways could be accomplished since the passage of Ballot Measure 37. Mr. Schwetz said that balancing the interests of the State and property owners would require negotiation among all of the interested parties. City Manager Taylor said Ballot Measure 37 would have an impact, which was why local solutions were being considered from a land use and transportation perspective and the legislature had commissioned the “big look” at the issue. Ms. Bettman commented that when congestion reached the point that it negatively affected the economic viability of property people would be willing to negotiate in order to decrease congestion. She was pleased that the AMS proposal would come to the council for approval before it went to the MPC. She said Eugene’s lower congestion compared to similarly sized jurisdiction was also good news. She asked how “peak” hour was defined with respect to congestion. Mr. Schwetz replied that the morning peak hour was 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and the evening peak hour was 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Ms. Bettman noted that much investment and infrastructure was predicated on peak hour congestion and asked if all jurisdictions used the same standard. Mr. Schwetz replied that the peak hour definition was a MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 23, 2006 Page 3 Work Session