Laserfiche WebLink
Responding to Mr. Meisner's remarks, Mr. Pap~ disagreed, saying that the success of BRT would <br />be built on the success of the initial corridor and, if ridership increased, he anticipated the system <br />would naturally flow to full buildout; if not, the public would be "telling us something." <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that the pilot corridor could not be used to judge the success or failure of BRT <br />because he did not think there were enough trips to measure the success of ultimate system <br />buildout. <br /> <br />Mr. Schwetz said that all the adopting jurisdictions would agree with a statement that they wanted <br />to support transit and LTD in its efforts to provide good transit service, and BRT seemed to <br />promise a lot. Where he thought the motion problematic was in that it required a commitment <br />from all the jurisdictions for an as-yet untried system. The uncertainty of the future could be a <br />point of contention for the other jurisdictions. The policy was written as a compromise that the <br />Springfield council could live with; as long as the system development proceeded incrementally, <br />the council was supportive. Mr. Schwetz thought the Springfield would object to the required <br />commitment for full system buildout. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said Mr. Schwetz's points were well-taken. However, he underscored the role of the <br />triennial review as a venue for adjustments. He noted that, when the TransPlan update was <br />initially drafted, the corridor contemplated had been all the way to west Eugene. He suggested <br />that members of the Springfield council were more excited about BRT with the move of Symantec <br />to Springfield and the potential a second BRT route would serve that area. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor agreed with Mr. Kelly that the existing policy was weak. He suggested a funding <br />approach that was based on constructing the most critical links of BRT. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 4:2; Mr. Pap~ and Ms. Taylor voting no. <br /> <br />The council considered the third motion: <br /> <br /> (3) Adequate OM&P Funding: The council proposes that the TransPlan <br /> include funding and mechanisms to ensure that the community's roadway <br /> and bike system at least falls no further behind in its condition of repair. This <br /> will require increased OM&P funding in at least some jurisdictions due to the <br /> currently deteriorating condition. The council proposes that all revenue <br /> sources included in the draft constrained financial plan should be examined <br /> by staff and adopting officials; within legal constraints, additional funds from <br /> these 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 /> new revenue sources will be used for roadway/bike improvements whose <br /> funding has been moved to OM&P, in accordance with the previous <br /> paragraph, and for the remaining OM&P shortfall. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 4, 2001 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />