CC Minutes - 07/10/00 Work Session

Home Browse Search

organization would apply to the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) for the use of the standards, so whatever specific numbers were developed for the measures would be monitored and progress reported to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). Mr. Schwetz reviewed the process. Mr. Lee asked how the community could be sure it could not meet the State target. Mr. Schwetz said that modeling indicated that information. Mr. Lee asked how the plan could be modified to meet the rule. Mr. Schwetz said that staff had attached alternative strategies and plan concepts tested as part of the plan development process, and those concepts included a range of pricing strategies and tools that were not acceptable to the elected officials five years ago. Mr. Lee reiterated his question, asking what the metropolitan area could do to change the plan to meet the target. Mr. Schwetz responded that discussion with the State indicated that there was no "bottom line" for the TPR. The State recognized that there were many ways to measure reduction in reliance on the auto. Mr. Schwetz said that the metropolitan area cannot meet the VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) target, but it could reduce automobile reliance, as measured by the four alternative performance measures. Mr. Kelly said that the goal of the plan should have been to meet the five-percent VMT target, which had been reduced by five percent since its initial adoption. He noted that changes had been proposed to the draft that would require changes to the model, which he believed made adoption of the alternative performance measures premature. Regarding the alternative measures, he said he did not see any plan policies that addressed DLCD concerns about Bus Rapid Transit and nodal development. Regarding the first travel response measure, Mr. Kelly said the proposed reductions "sounded great" but meant that drive alone mode share only dropped five percent, which he termed "fairly close to statistical noise" and insignificant. He found the same true of the percentage of nonautomobile trips. He suggested that instead, the plan state the drop from x percentage to y percentage. In response to Mr. Kelly's comments, Mr. Schwetz said that DLCD sent Eugene-Springfield "down the path" of using the percentage change as basis for judging progress. He noted that the existing VMT per capita was 11.0, and the change in the trend condition was 12.0. Mr. Schwetz said that local staff had pointed out to DLCD staff that a ten-percent change over a twenty-year period was hard to measure with the models that currently existed. Ms. Childs said that Bob Courtright of DLCD would be at the work session on July 12, and could provide more input on what the State expected. Ms. Nathanson said she would appreciate more frequent transit service to her neighborhood. She asked what percentage of the population was actually served by a bus coming by every 15 minutes as opposed to the percentage of the population served by a bus every half-hour. Regarding increases in bicycle miles, Ms. Nathanson reported that she had been discussing how to increase citizens' awareness of the available bicycle paths in the community with the City's Alternative Modes Coordinator. Mr. Meisner noted his interest in achieving compliance with the TPR/VMT goal plan concept, but would alter it slightly by encouraging staff to look at measures that achieve the ten percent reduction while broadening the plan concept to include nodal development in all potential development areas. He was also interested in a serious emphasis on Transportation Demand Management. Mr. Rayor suggested it was confusing to see bicycle miles compared to the number of trips. He wanted to see all the figures in terms of trips. Mr. Schwetz responded that the framework developed for the approach was in direct response to the objectives in the TPR, and one of those MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 10, 2000 Page 9 Work Session