Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Childs referred to Attachment B, and noted testimony about Systemwide Policy 5, TransPlan <br />Project List, and the associated staff recommendation. There was no objection to the <br />recommendation for Option 2. <br /> <br />Roadway Policy l, Mobility and Safety for all Modes <br /> <br />Ms. Childs referred to testimony regarding Roadway Policy 1, Mobility and Safety for all Modes, <br />and the related staff recommendation. There was no objection to the staff recommendation of no <br />change to the policy. <br /> <br />Roadway Policy 2, Motor Vehicle Level of Service <br /> <br />Ms. Childs noted testimony calling for the establishment of Level of Service (LOS) E throughout <br />the system and Springfield's opposition to that approach. Lane County recommended no change <br />to the policy. She said that the current LOS was LOS D; there was discussion among the <br />planning commissions about whether that was realistic, but eventual agreement that LOS D <br />should be retained as a standard except in those cases where it was anticipated the standard <br />should be lower, such as in the nodes and in the Central Area Transportation Study area. She <br />noted that the Springfield City Council was willing to consider allowing LOS E in some <br />circumstances. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Ms. Childs said that Springfield recommended no <br />changes to the policy, but wanted clarity about situations where LOS E was acceptable in that <br />community. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked what effect altering the policy to LOS E would have on proposed developments. <br />Mr. Reinhard said that it would likely make it easier for development to attain the standard. Ms. <br />Childs said that the issue of the standard would most likely have an effect on an application for a <br />plan amendment rather than an individual development proposal. If LOS D was lowered to LOS <br />E, it would indicate that a more congested system was acceptable. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said while moving to LOS E might make development easier, his concern about <br />retaining the LOS D standard was that it could make road expansion easier as well and create an <br />additional impetus for increasing roadway capacity as opposed to looking for other solutions. For <br />that reason, he was interested in Option 2, modify the policy to use LOS E in all areas of the <br />community except State highway facilities. He said that additionally, lowering the LOS was a <br />reflection of reality. Mr. Kelly said that LOS was a very simplistic measure because it only <br />addressed peak times of commuting in the afternoon, and if one was attempting to get from Point <br />Ato Point B, the issue to him was the ease with which that occurred. He did not think that <br />overall trip time would be significantly affected by a reduction in LOS. He did not want LOS to <br />drive the planning process, and if the community was "stuck with it" he wanted to lower it to <br />reflect current conditions. <br />Ms. Nathanson found the LOS policy overly bureaucratic and nonexplanatory. She questioned <br />the wording in the policy as unclear in that she was unsure of the meaning of the phrase <br />performance on the roadway system. She said that the public would wonder why the elected <br />officials were not attempting to achieve LOS A, and that should be addressed by the policy. She <br />said "let's make it real for people." <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 26, 2000 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />