Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Rayor concurred with Mr. Meisner. He would rather not include a bridge study in the project <br />list at this time. He did not want to preclude a bridge if that what was what it took to make the <br />transportation system in the metropolitan area work. He did not want such a crossing to impact <br />parkland or existing housing. Regarding the location of such a bridge crossing, Mr. Rayor <br />acknowledged the concerns of River Road residents regarding a potential bridge site, but the <br />stretch along the river that they wished to preserve was the main connection between what he <br />termed "the two Eugenes on each side of the river." <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly also concurred with Mr. Meisner. A study was not needed at this time. If there was <br />strong pressure for a study from the other adopting bodies in the interest of compromise, he <br />would be comfortable with the text in the packet as a fallback with the clarifying language offered <br />by Mr. Meisner. Mr. Kelly acknowledged the comments of the FHWA but said he was not <br />comfortable in broadening the scope of the study. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman also agreed with Mr. Meisner. She did not think the study was needed on the project <br />list, but felt the language mentioned by Mr. Meisner addressed her concerns regarding the <br />potential conversion of a bicycle bridge if a study was included in the plan. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mayor Torrey, Ms. Childs said that she thought that LTD was <br />interested in expanding the existing bicycle bridges, and she thought it important to get <br />clarification on that point. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ said if a study was done, it should be broad and not limited. If that was not to occur, he <br />did not want a study. He asked for more information about LTD's position. Mr. Thompson said <br />that the LTD Board had initially favored the text as proposed and was interested in an alternate <br />modes crossing in the same corridor as a new automobile bridge. When the board heard the <br />concerns of FHWA, it indicated it would prefer not limiting the study if that would conflict with <br />NEPA in the future. The board would like to see a study initiated when there was agreement on a <br />study area. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ indicated he was nearing the same position as the LTD Board. <br /> <br />Finance Poficy <br /> <br />Mr. Schwetz summarized the positions of the LTD Board and Springfield City Council regarding <br />the proposed policy. He noted the board support for Option 5, outlined in a memorandum entitled <br />MPC Subcommittee on TransPlan Unresolved Issues. He said the Springfield council was not at <br />all interested in a new finance policy. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman was very supportive of a new finance policy. She thought the finance policy <br />proposed by the Eugene City Council (Option 2) was the closest to what she would like to adopt. <br />She thought the modified policy statement was a reasonable compromise if revised to read <br />"Recognizing legal limitations associated with expending various sources of transportation funds.. <br />"She said that the some funds were more flexible than others, and the change in text meant <br />Eugene was not locked into following any political decisions that had been made about <br />transportation funding if they were not in the City's best interest. Ms. Childs indicated the policy <br />was intended to refer to legal limitations. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 29, 2001 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />