Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Schwetz asked what happened to TransPlan if there was no citizen support for a local revenue <br />specific to implementation of nodal development. Mr. Kelly responded that the plan would be <br />amended and nodal development backed out from the assumptions underlying the document. Mr. <br />Meisner concurred. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner wanted to see the nodes develop. He said that "zoning means nothing unless we <br />make these happen." He acknowledged the manager's concerns but said that the council was <br />only telling staff to determine the appropriate level of funding and suggest some funding sources. <br />Mr. Meisner did not think nodal development would be taken seriously without a price tag. <br />Speaking to the mayor's remarks, he agreed with Mr. Kelly and Ms. Bettman: there were many <br />detailed things that he would have liked to have changed in TransPlan and several were rejected <br />by the council and others were rejected by the other jurisdictions. The issues reflected in the <br />three motions were fundamental to him. He thought the council had capitulated on its issues <br />several times, and wanted to see some positive cooperation from the City's partners in TransPlan. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman wondered at the discussion of funding at such a detailed level when other projects <br />had been added to the plan without any such discussion. She said the City had built incentives <br />for nodal development into many of its plans and policies, including TransPlan, but had no money <br />for those incentives. If the City had money for infrastructure to serve nodal development and <br />could leverage that money to make nodal development happen, it should do so. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 7:0. <br /> <br />The council considered the second motion. <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 afl jurisdictions to furl system build-out over the 20 <br /> years (presuming continued Federal funds availability). TransPlan <br /> would state that the 'Cuff 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 /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 4, 2001 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />