Laserfiche WebLink
redevelopment nodes for such features as street modifications, for <br /> pedestrian amenities, transit centers and public open space. We propose <br /> that staff determine an appropriate level of funding and suggest funding <br /> sources to the adopting officials. Staff should also propose guidance <br /> language for TransPlan that outlines criteria for identifying eligible project and <br /> provides a list of the types of features (e.g., street modifications) that would <br /> be included in the funding line item. <br /> <br /> (2) Effective Bus Rapid Transit: Like nodal development, BRT has been <br /> identified as a component vital to TransPlan's success. However, the <br /> TransPlan language regarding BRT (see page 2-26 and Appendix A BRT <br /> map) is equivocal at best. <br /> <br /> The council proposes that staff draft strengthened policy language for BRT <br /> that would modify current language on page 2-26 and on the BRT map in <br /> Appendix A. <br /> <br /> Such language would include: <br /> <br /> · commitment by all jurisdictions to full system build-out over the 20 <br /> years (presuming continued federal funds availability). TransPlan <br /> would state that the "full system" will include at least xx miles of BRT <br /> corridor, though final corridor routing has yet to be fully determined. <br /> (xx is the total number of miles of corridor shown on the current draft's <br /> map.) <br /> <br /> · commitment that the great majority of BRT corridor service will feature <br /> exclusive busways (say, 80 percent) to provide adequate performance <br /> and to attract customers. <br /> <br /> · strengthen language in policy and map regarding features of the BRT <br /> system. (E.g., on page 2-26 "Positive characteristics include..." does <br /> not mean the system will actually have those characteristics, and on <br /> the map "may have dedicated travel lanes" and "may employ...signal <br /> priority" is very weak.) <br /> <br /> (3) Adequate OM&P Funding: The council proposes that the TransPlan <br /> include funding and mechanisms to ensure that our roadway and bike system <br /> at least falls no further behind in its condition of repair. This will require <br /> increased OM&P funding in at least some jurisdictions due to the currently <br /> deteriorating condition. The council proposes that all revenue sources <br /> included in the draft constrained financial plan should be examined by staff <br /> and adopting officials; within legal constraints, additional funds from these <br /> sources will be moved to OM&P (for both local and State facilities). <br /> <br /> If such additional revenues are insufficient to at least maintain current system <br /> conditions and to build capital projects deemed to be of high priority, the <br /> adopting officials will specifically identify a list of potential additional revenue <br /> sources and commit to adopting at least one of them at the local level. Such <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 4, 2001 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />