Laserfiche WebLink
Reference: Based on TPR 660-12-0040(2)(d). Also see Finance Policy #5, <br /> Chapter 2, page 37. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman expressed concern that changing the policy would change the balance of the plan. <br />She asked how the motion affected the removal of on-street parking for bicycle lanes, and if it lent <br />additional policy weight to removal of on-street parking in favor of on-street bicycle lanes. Mr. <br />Schwetz said that it could have that impact. He added that there were not that many such <br />projects on the list of projects. He was unsure of the miles of roadway involved. Ms. Bettman <br />indicated she needed that information to support the motion. She cited her concerns about <br />Jefferson Street, included on the project list, which would require removal of on-street parking <br />desired by neighbors and could impact small businesses. She questioned whether the weight of <br />public input would be overwhelmed by the weight of the policy. <br /> <br />Mr. Schwetz clarified that the intent of the motion was to build the projects on the list that provide <br />the most critical connections, filled in gaps, and enhanced safety. He agreed with Ms. Childs' <br />recommendation. Nothing in the policy changed the normal process by which each jurisdiction <br />implemented their bicycle projects. Residents would still be given a chance to express concerns, <br />and he anticipated projects would not happen where there was resistance. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Pap8 regarding new motorized scooter technology, Mr. <br />Johnson clarified that motorized vehicles were not allowed on the bicycle paths and motorized <br />scooters were not allowed anywhere. <br /> <br />Speaking to Ms. Bettman's comments, Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Schwetz, saying the policy would <br />ensure that gaps were filled and connections were made sooner than would occur with the <br />previous policy. The existing processes, including public involvement, would continue to exist. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson supported the motion, saying if a transportation route was considered essential it <br />should be treated as a priority. She believed that local conditions would be addressed when <br />bicycle paths were built. The motion enabled priority connections to move ahead. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson noted her receipt of a packet from a person selling motorized bicycles, and said <br />she had made an inquiry of Diane Bishop of Public Works Transportation about the subject, who <br />responded with an answer she hoped could be shared with the entire council. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said that in the absence of the policy, he did not think priority paths would be <br />constructed. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman expressed concern the result of the motion would be nothing but parking removal <br />and painted bicycle lanes, and there would be no money for design strategies that addressed <br />neighborhood livability. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor expressed concern about the removal of on-street parking near small businesses for <br />installation of bicycle paths. She thought there might be unwanted consequences from the <br />motion. She requested clarification of the motion. Mr. Schwetz clarified that it took the existing <br />bicycle list and identified a subset of those projects that met the criteria outlined in the motion. He <br />noted that no new projects were being added to TransPlan. Those bicycle projects that were <br />considered most critical would be built early on. Mr. Schwetz confirmed that some were off-street <br />bicycle paths. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 4, 2001 Page 13 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />