CC Minutes - 07/28/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Meisner commended the group for the document. He acknowledged the importance of TDM but noted enormous resistance to the concept, adding that locally Eugene may want to "do more." He opposed speedy implementation of nodal development, saying the phrase was vague and there was disagreement about what it meant. Mr. Meisner said the plan's policy statement was vague and did not provide clarity and guidance. He said the summary, likewise, needed more detail, specifically on the consequences. Mr. Kelly described the document as unacceptable and criticized it for the following: 1) an enormous disconnect between the policies, the projects, and the outcomes; 2) low return on capital system improvement investment; 3) insufficient transit share, and similar problems with other measures; 4) imbalance in the capital project spending; 4) 20-year project list described as legally binding but unclear what the legal status of other items are, e.g., future projects, policy enforcement mechanisms, etc; 5) no interest in a transportation utility fee (TUF) yet it continues to be raised as a revenue source; 6) what was described in the document is not nodal development; and 7) concern that the scale of specific projects (e.g. West Eugene Parkway, Valley River Bridge, Belt Line/I-5 interchange) is too large--shift some of those dollars for the Franklin/I-5 interchange. Mr. Rayor said he was disappointed in nodal development as described in the document and was concerned that traffic congestion would not be improved by the plan. He highlighted some of his concerns: the planning aspect of downtown parking, the modal split (high speed, high capacity roads discouraged bicycling), more emphasis needed on connectivity, parking lot size/new development (include bike parking and other standards). Mr. Rayor said he believed there was resistance from Public Works staff to anything other than curbed, urban, standard paved roads. He expressed concern about the Franklin/I-5 interchange, saying it was almost impossible given the constraints of the river. He also expressed exception to the aesthetics of the proposed Belt Line/I-5 interchange, adding that he doubted most citizens wanted visitors greeted with that view. Ms. Nathanson said she was also interested in connectivity and believed that off-street bicycle paths or other bicycle routes might be a better investment than bicycle lanes on heavily traveled arterials. She referred the council to page 3 of the commission's memo and wondered if there had been any discussion with the school district in developing TransPlan and in developing TDM programs given that there has been an increase in nonwork trips such as school-related and KidSports trips. With respect to the Valley River Bridge, Ms. Nathanson asked if a majority of the commission supported a bridge in that general area. Mr. Farley clarified that the commission thought that issue should be revisited sometime after completion of the Ferry Street Bridge improvements and the new bike bridge, asking itself "Do we need an additional bridge, and where?" Mr. Lee asked for information about how the new gas tax impacts TransPlan. Mayor Torrey said he believed another bridge would be needed, perhaps in Alton Baker Park. He warned the council to expect a large turnout at the public hearing. Ms. Taylor suggested the plan be adopted by sections. She opposed to an additional bridge and emphasized that the TUF was "dead." She said part of the TDM problem was the lack of community centers and neighborhood parks. She agreed with Mr. Rayor that traffic congestion, parking safety, and other problems have reduced the use of bicycles as a mode of transportation. She called the plan unbalanced and believed the council was far from adopting any portion of it. Mr. Farr encouraged the commission to refine the document and thanked it for the effort. Mr. Farr left the meeting. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 1999 Page 6 5:30 p.m.