Laserfiche WebLink
3. Add capacity to the existing system--The third priority is to make major <br /> improvements to existing transportation facilities such as adding general <br /> purpose lanes and making alignment corrections to accommodate legal-sized <br /> vehicles. <br /> <br /> 4. Add new facilities to the system--The lowest priority is to add new <br /> transportation facilities such as a new roadway. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly was very supportive of the motion, and assumed staff would examine the language <br />proposed by Mr. Meisner and recommend revisions or modifications before the joint work <br />sessions if necessary. For example, he pointed out, the definition did not mention preservation <br />as something that protected existing systems. Mr. Meisner and Mr. Lee accepted Mr. Kelly's <br />point as a friendly amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee supported the motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs said it was not clear if the motion was intended to address new systems development <br />charges-funded roads required to support new development, or if the motion was intended to <br />address new bridges, etc. Mr. Meisner said his motion was not intended to preclude such <br />projects, particulary local streets. <br /> <br />Mr. Carlson pointed out that most road projects in TransPlan were urban standards projects, such <br />as collectors, which increased capacity. He was seeking a sense of Mr. Meisner' intent regarding <br />such facilities. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 asked how Bus Rapid Transit would be prioritized under Mr. Meisner's proposal. Mr. <br />Meisner suggested that the local share of the cost was a combination of priorities, but primarily <br />the second priority he had identified, "Improve the efficiency and capacity of existing <br />transportation facilities." <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said that the goal inherent in the motion was a responsible goal, but he did not <br />want the prioritization to become force of law that precluded the council from making a <br />responsible decision about local funding that could have a beneficial impact on the transportation <br />system. He was concerned that someone would use the priorities to stop a transportation <br />project. Mayor Torrey also questioned whether the other elected officials would support the <br />proposal. He asked if the priorities would also apply to State and federal funds the City received <br />for transportation projects. Ms. Childs did not interpret the motion as applying only to local funds. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly suggested that staff could revise the wording of the policy to better implement what the <br />council was attempting to achieve. He said that given the policy would apply to the Capital <br />Improvement Program (CIP) and local Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) it did address <br />the question of other funding sources. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey expressed concern that the result of the motion would be that State and federal <br />funds initially designated for Eugene would be redistributed by those agencies to other <br />communities. Mr. Kelly believed that the policy allowed the council to prioritize local funds at the <br />local level. He said that if the City was contemplating a priority 3 project that included federal <br />funds, and the council would rather use its local match on a priority 1 project, the policy allowed it <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 21, 2000 Page 16 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />