CC Minutes - 02/26/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

occur now. Ms. Hocken responded that LTD was committed to working with the City and to being responsive to City suggestions. Mr. Johnson noted that staff had discussed the district's inability to realize the goals of the system immediately, leading to the recommendation for phasing. Regarding project options, Mr. Meisner advocated for alternative fuel vehicles even if they were not available in the "look" the district wanted. Ms. Hocken hoped the BRT Steering Committee could discuss that issue. She said that the district was looking at potential vehicle types now. Mr. Meisner said that the phasing was acceptable, but the questions proposed for commission review were very important to him and relevant to his continuing support for the project. Mr. Farr said he was impressed with the way the district took input about the project and attempted to address the concerns of those living in the residential areas and the commercial uses along the route. He favored the project and was prepared to move forward. He thanked Ms. Hocken and Mr. Bennett. Mr. Rayor thought BRT would work, was innovative and was good for Eugene. He hoped LTD would show sensitivity to conditions on Franklin Boulevard. He said that both trees and bicycle paths were important, and parts of Franklin lacked a good bicycle system. Those elements must be balanced. Mr. Rayor was concerned that BRT could preclude the addition of bicycle lanes on Franklin. Ms. Hocken responded that LTD was proposing a three-block area of bicycle improvements with the first phase. She said that bicyclists do not like to use Franklin Boulevard now. Ms. Hocken suggested that the provision of bicycle paths was an ongoing evolving issue. Mr. Kelly said his support for BRT in the future would be dependent on the level of detail in the motion offered to the council. He wanted a motion with bulleted points about the nature of the Phase 1 pilot corridor and the neighborhood connector service. Mr. Kelly said he was very supportive of the BRT concept and supported the project if it included enough attributes to ensure its success. He supported the phasing proposed with the caveat raised by Mr. Meisner and a point mentioned by Mr. Farmer regarding the need to ensure that phasing precluded future build out at a reasonable expense. Mr. Kelly added he supported the phasing because it allowed coordination with the City's vision of Franklin while allowing the City to investigate the potential of running part of the future build-out in place of a current automobile travel lane. Mr. Kelly noted the slip in the project schedule and asked why he should believe the new schedule. Ms. Hocken responded that the Eugene council had been scheduled to review the project in November 2000 and was only considering it now. The Planning Commission took longer than anticipated to review the project. She pointed out that the council was not scheduled to make a decision until April. Ms. Hocken thought that once the approval process was completed and the final decision embarked on, the project would proceed quickly and on schedule. Ken Hamm, Director of LTD, noted that the district had committed to the Congressional delegation that it would have community concurrence before it moved forward with BRT. Ms. Bettman supported the questions being referred to the commission, and said she would like to see the council consider the questions under the section "Should other project options be considered." She thought the commission should be asked to discuss that section as well. Ms. Bettman thought issues related to jurisdiction should be referred to the council, and suggested that construction management issues were more appropriately addressed by staff. MINUTE--Eugene City Council February 26, 2001 Page 13 Work Session