Laserfiche WebLink
The council considered additional projects receiving public comments. Ms. Childs asked the <br />council if there were any projects members wished to discuss. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart noted his previous remarks regarding an effective transportation system and spoke in <br />favor of retaining the West Eugene Parkway on the projects list because of the congested state <br />of West 11th Avenue. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor wanted to delete the West Eugene Parkway from the projects list for environmental <br />reasons. <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Mr. Kelly, to delete the West Eugene <br /> Parkway from the TransPlan projects list. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor recused himself from any discussion regarding the West Eugene Parkway because of <br />a conflict of interest, and left the table. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly noted that since the parkway had been voted on 14 years ago, there had been changes <br />in the community, and he did not think the results of the public vote "stands for all time" in the <br />philosophical sense. He said that in terms of the TransPlan draft, he was most troubled by the <br />phasing of the projects, and the fact the center segment was the only one on the fiscally <br />constrained list. He believed that building the center segment only would not benefit the public or <br />be a good expenditure of public funds. Mr. Kelly said that the segment was projected to reduce <br />peak hour congestion on West 11th Avenue by eight percent at a cost of $17 million. He thought <br />that was too much money for too little return, and said he understood that the other phases were <br />in the out years of the plan because of funding uncertainty. For those reasons, he was <br />uncomfortable leaving the project in the plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart said that eight percent did not seem to be much of a reduction, but the return on the <br />investment would not occur at all if the project was deleted from the list. He believed that <br />removing the project removed the pressure on staff to bring the project to final fruition. He <br />thought the community needed to find a way to make the parkway work, and to address the <br />environmental and funding issues surrounding the parkway. Removing the parkway from the list <br />would mean all consideration for the future was gone. He reminded the council of the public vote <br />in support of the parkway, and said that those using West 11th Avenue corridor felt the need for <br />the project. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner supported the motion. He did not approve of the proposed connection and thought <br />the project cost a great deal of money for little effect. He did not understand why the parkway <br />needed to be routed so far to the west and needed to consume valuable resource land. He did <br />not trust the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) about the project "at all." He also <br />doubted the City would ever see any protection of West 11th Avenue from Charnelton to <br />Chambers streets, adding that ©D©T had done "everything they can to destroy it and they will <br />continue to do so." He said that there may be some utility in connecting 6th/7th avenues to West <br />11th Avenue, but did not think it should occur as planned. While Mr. Meisner acknowledged that <br />the voters "may well" have approved the parkway, he suggested that "people change their minds" <br />and the results of a vote could be different in the future. <br />Mr. Pap~ agreed with the remarks of Mr. Fart. He provided context for the discussion, noting the <br />passage of Senate Bill 100 prompted the City to plan for its industrial land base in west Eugene. <br />He said that the parkway was designed in provide access to those areas. During the 1980s, the <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 7, 2000 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />