Laserfiche WebLink
the street widening that it would involve. She raised concern that if the motion were adopted as <br />a general policy there could be negative results. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner strongly emphasized the need for available bike lanes that allowed any cyclist to get <br />anywhere. He supported continuing to require bike lanes along the project routes. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly agreed that off-street bike paths were preferable for convenience and safety, but added <br />that it would be nearly impossible to add off-street bike paths in areas that were already <br />developed. He commented that he would rather have a striped lane on a street than nothing at <br />all. He suggested adding language from the Arterial and Collector Street Plan to the policy <br />regarding that issue. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs suggested, to general consensus, that staff take that language from the Arterial and <br />Collector Street plan and put it in the policy definition and intent statement. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Farr regarding whether having the word "require" in the policy <br />language would mean that every arterial and collector would have to have bike lanes, Mr. <br />Reinhard said that there was a process in the Arterial and Collector Street Plan for exceptions. <br />Mr. Schwetz added that the policy language was taken, almost verbatim, from the State <br />Transportation Planning Rule and as a State regulation it was out of council's hands. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Pap~ regarding safety measures for bike lanes, Mr. Reinhard <br />said that there was a tradeoff between the safest kinds of measures. He added that new things <br />were still being tried. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor raised concern over safety levels on on street bike lanes. She expressed a desire to <br />see better crossing measures on streets that were not arterial so that bicyclists could make <br />better use of streets with less traffic. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner urged the council to think about TransPlan as a whole. He commented that if <br />alternate modes of transportation were to be considered, then bikes needed to be able to go <br />anywhere cars went. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly offered a friendly amendment, which was accepted, that the language from the Arterial <br />and Collector Street Plan be added to the definition and intent portion of Bicycle Policy 2. <br /> <br /> The amended motion passed unanimously, 6:0. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. Farr, moved to accept Bicycle Policy 3. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly noted that the summary of the public testimony mentioned that a modification would be <br />useful to require bikeway connections to existing as well as new development. He said that he <br />understood that there was no a process to require new bikeways within existing developed areas <br />but called for language in TransPlan stating that it was a priority for jurisdictions to fill gaps in the <br />existing system of connectors. He asked for staff to come up with language before the joint work <br />session that either added to Policy 3 or added a new policy that said that there would be priority <br />given to adding needed bikeways in already developed areas through the CIP or another <br />mechanism. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 2000 Page 11 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />