Laserfiche WebLink
· Strengthening language in policy and map regarding features of the <br /> BRT system· (E.g., on page 2-26 "Positive characteristics include·.." <br /> does not mean the system will actually have those characteristics, and <br /> on the map "may have dedicated travel lanes "and ''may employ.. <br /> · signal priority"is very weak·) <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 said he was unable to support the motion. He hoped BRT did what it was intended to do <br />but believed the consumer would make that determination, not the City Council or Lane Transit <br />District (LTD). He thought the motion was too rigid and dictated the nature of the system without <br />any flexibility for what might happen ten to twenty years in the future. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. PapS, but said the point of the motion was that the system did not <br />have a chance of working unless it was fully built out. If the BRT system only consisted of a route <br />between downtowns, it would be "doomed" because it would not have the needed ridership or <br />funding support from the federal government. Unless the system met its own criteria, such as <br />exclusive busways, it would not work. The motion stated that BRT was essential to TransPlan <br />and simply called for more specific text in the plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that the council had discussed the Franklin segment of the system as a three- <br />phase segment; the previous evening the Planning Commission had agreed not to include text <br />about completion of phases 2 and 3 in TransPlan, and he understood from staff that LTD had <br />indicated it had no intention of providing financial or real participation in support of phases 2 and <br />3; "Phase 1 is what we get." He did not want to create a system that could not succeed and then <br />forced the community, through the triennial review, to fund system improvements or transportation <br />demand management strategies. Mr. Schwetz clarified that Mr. Meisner was stating LTD was only <br />committed to the pilot corridor. Mr. Meisner said that his point was that LTD intended to explore <br />other routes before it completed phases 2 and 3 of the Franklin segment. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said the proposed motion was again intended to provide internal consistency to <br />TransPlan. If the modeling indicated that the system relied on a system that was fully buildout as <br />shown in the map in TransPlan, the policy language for BRT "better point us in that direction." He <br />agreed with Mr. Pap8 that mid-course changes might be needed, but suggested the triennial <br />review of TransPlan would address that issue. The motion told LTD that the City was behind it, <br />and wanted to see BRT succeed: "Here is the policy language that lets you move forward and <br />make it succeed." <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor agreed with Mr. PapS. She was very skeptical about BRT and thought better shuttle <br />service throughout the city was more important. She pointed out that Eugene already had very <br />good bus service along some corridors. She did not support the motion. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor, Mr. Schwetz said the MPC approved a transit measure <br />that addressed transit's contribution to congestion relief along congested corridors. Mr. Rayor <br />asked if BRT was a big part of the modeling. Mr. Schwetz said yes, particularly along major <br />corridors. <br />Responding to a question from Mayor Torrey, Ms. Childs confirmed the motion had no impact on <br />the financially constrained project list in TransPlan. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 asked if privately funded transit providers were addressed in the performance measure. <br />Mr. Schwetz clarified that the plan as drafted only considered the service provided by LTD. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 4, 2001 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />