Laserfiche WebLink
Commission's communication to the council and supported those recommendations. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said it was important to him that "a flavor" of the council's proposed TransPlan text regarding <br />BRT, as it applied to Eugene only, be incorporated into the IGA. He cited the commitment of to full build out <br />over the 20-year planning period as an example. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that the project description lacked mention of a neighborhood feeder line associated with the <br />pilot phase, and its frequency of service. He asked that information be included. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ confirmed with LTD staff that LTD had budgeted $2 million for Phase 2. He asked for information <br />about the status of the route in Glenwood. Ms. Hocken said that the proposal was accepted by the property <br />owners as the best of the alternatives other than "no build" option. She thought the property owners knew <br />how much LTD had done to accommodate their concerns and were comfortable with Phase 1. Ms. Hocken <br />added that LTD was working with the City of Springfield on planning for Glenwood, and she hoped the plan <br />that resulted spoke to the ultimate BRT aligmnent in the area. Mr. Viggiano noted that at Mr. Meisner's <br />suggestion, LTD had put money aside to buy land as it came available from willing sellers to build toward a <br />full BRT corridor. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor asked if the City or LTD had a commitment from the University to allow the development of a <br />bicycle system on its property as a substitute for future on-street bicycle paths on Franklin Boulevard. Mr. <br />Viggiano said that no written commitment had been secured, but he thought the University was committed to <br />the concept. Mr. Rayor asked about the potential of dedicating lanes in areas where buses and cars would <br />mix as HOV lanes rather than as dedicated buslanes. Mr. Viggiano said that such sections were limited in <br />number. In some cases, such as along major corridors, HOV lanes could make sense. Mr. Rayor encouraged <br />the completion of bicycle connections in the Glenwood area. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman endorsed Ms. Nathanson's recommendation regarding the involvement of the CST. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman noted her support for BRT but said that she had several conditions of approval she would like <br />to recommend. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to come back <br /> to the City Council with a final motion for BRT approval, which includes a proposal <br /> for funding City staff time dedicated to the project, preferably from the $11 million, an <br /> IGA that preserves the City's authority over fundamental elements of the project within <br /> the city limits; a provision in the Intergovernmental Agreement and/or project <br /> description that the final project within the city limits be consistent with the provisions <br /> that the Eugene City Council has adopted for the BRT policy in TransPlan. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly offered a friendly amendment that the concepts in the letter to the council from Board <br />President Hilary Wylie be incorporated into IGA. The friendly amendment was acceptable to Ms. <br />Bettman. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked if the motion addressed the operations of the public transit system, such <br />as timing and frequency and which feeder routes connected at which stops. Ms. Bettman said <br />she did not go into that level of detail. She did not anticipate the council would be scheduling <br />buses; rather, she was more concerned with issues such as traffic lanes and historic trees. Ms. <br />Nathanson wanted to be clear that the City's authority did not extend to bus scheduling. <br /> <br />Speaking to Ms. Bettman's motion, Mr. Hamm said that in the spirit of the transportation <br /> <br /> <br />