Laserfiche WebLink
solution was found in TransPlan or Land Use Code Update. Ms. Childs said that it was probably <br />prudent to address the issue in both documents. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner supported the motion and agreed with Mr. Kelly's remarks about the status of bicycle <br />parking in the community. He supported addressing the issue through the Land Use Code <br />Update as well. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 asked how the policy would be implemented. Ms. Childs said that, for example, <br />downtown Eugene was currently a bicycle parking-free zone. The City had a program to provide <br />City-funded bicycle racks downtown to meet demand; she thought a similar approach might be <br />useful throughout the community, as it would ensure that bicycle racks were installed and met <br />certain standards. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee asked that the policy be referred to the Human Rights Commission Committee on <br />Accessibility. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. <br /> <br />The council considered a motion suggested by Mr. Meisner, copies of which were distributed to <br />members, to add a new financial policy. In support of the proposed policy, Mr. Meisner said that <br />the existing finance policies set priorities for the expenditure of State and federal facilities, and he <br />was proposing a policy that prioritized the expenditure of local funds. <br /> <br /> Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Mr. Lee, to add a finance policy to <br /> TransPlan that states the community would maintain transportation <br /> performance and improve safety by improving system efficiency and <br /> management before adding capacity. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner referred the council to the text following the motion that explained its intent and <br />reviewed the definition: <br /> <br /> POLICY DEFINITION/INTENT: Use the following priorities for developing Capital <br /> Improvement Programs (CIP) and Metropolitan Transportation Improvement <br /> Programs (MTIP). Implement higher priority measures unless a lower priority <br /> measure is clearly more cost-effective or unless it clearly better supports safety, <br /> growth management, or other livability and economic viability considerations. Plans <br /> must document the findings which support using lower priority measures before <br /> higher priority measures. <br /> <br /> 1. Protect the existing system--The highest priority is to preserve the <br /> functionality of the existing transportation system by means such as access <br /> management, comprehensive plans, transportation demand management, <br /> improved traffic operations, and alternative modes. <br /> <br /> 2. Improve the efficiency and capacity of existing transportation facilities--The <br /> second priority is to make minor improvements to existing highway facilities <br /> such as widening highway shoulders or adding auxiliary lanes, providing <br /> better access for alternative modes (e.g., bike lanes, sidewalks, bus <br /> shelters), extending or connecting local streets, and making other off-system <br /> improvements. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 21, 2000 Page 15 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />