CC Minutes - 10/23/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

standard measure of congestion although jurisdictions varied in their responses. He said in some cases, such as Portland, used a two-hour peak period on some key facilities. Ms. Bettman asked whether expanded, free bus services could be factored into the mobility standards model to determine its impact on congestion. Mr. Schwetz said that a methodology requirement was to consider a wide range of options and some analysis had been completed of the impact of expanding transit far beyond the current system. Staff would be returning with a summary of those results. Ms. Bettman asked if it was possible to specifically analyze the impact of free expanded transit. Mr. Schwetz stated that staff could perform that analysis. LOCG staff Susan Payne indicated that the challenge of analyzing the impact of free transit was lack of baseline data and a reference point to help predict people’s reaction. Mr. Schwetz added there were likely caveats staff would place around such an analysis. Ms. Bettman said she would be eager to see that analysis. Mr. Kelly said the key to developing AMS was following State statutes and administrative rules. He underscored Ms. Bettman’s point that rush hour congestion was frustrating but should be put in perspective with traffic flow during the remainder of a 24-hour period. He was nervous about using terms such as “failure” at a specific level of service as it generally meant that traffic was still proceeding but drivers might wait through a second cycle of lights at an intersection. He said that failure could connote something more devastating to the public. Ms. Bettman asked why residential was not included as a component under congestion tolerant land use th facility in the comparison of congestion table. She also asked if the State had opted out of West 11 Avenue th east of Beltline since the agenda material only referred to West 11 Avenue west of Beltline. Mr. Schwetz said the facility east of Beltline was the City’s and the State would be willing to discuss the entire corridor but the State’s section where the standards would apply was west of Beltline. He said omission of residential uses in the table was an oversight as congestion-tolerant actually referred to a mixed-use area that would include different types of residential. Mr. Schwetz said that engineers analyzing congestion data had observed that at the point of levels of service E and F the system became unstable and the models were not useful in predicting what might happen. Mr. Papé asked if there were safety indices on the various levels of service. Mr. Schwetz said there was no standard related to safety but generally speaking the more congestion the greater the opportunity for accidents. Mayor Piercy noted that the community would gain some experience with free transit when EmX service began. C. WORK SESSION: Programming of Surface Transportation Program-Urban (STP-U) Funds City Manager Taylor said that Mr. Schoening would discuss resources available to address the backlog of preservation projects. Mr. Schoening stated that consistent with the council’s previous direction, pavement preservation projects were before it for review and approval before applications were submitted to the MPC. He said Attachment B to the agenda item summary was an outline of the STP-U funds programming process and timeline. He reviewed the list of pavement preservation projects set forth in Attachment A and explained how projects MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 23, 2006 Page 4 Work Session