Laserfiche WebLink
employ new decals to indicate their revised status. <br />Mr. Muller, in response to a request from Mr. Zelenka, indicated the proposed EmX extension routes within <br />the Springfield sector which were not demonstrated on the map submitted to the council. <br />Mr. Muller proceeded to summarize the proposed service revisions noting that they represented a 14.5% <br />service cut for LTD. He noted that similar cuts were enacted in 2000 in a two-step process, which was <br />unpleasant but manageable, after several sustained expansion periods throughout the 1990’s. He <br />commented that the current service reductions might be much more difficult as there was not as much <br />substandard or superfluous LTD service. <br />Mr. Muller noted that certain portions of LTD service might be reinstated should economic conditions <br />improve. <br />Mr. Eyster commented that it was very painful to have to cut service to such a great extent, particularly <br />because ridership had been up considerably in recent years. <br />Mr. Pangborn, in response to a question from Ms. Piercy, noted that the fixed route transit systems <br />comparable to LTD in Portland, Salem and Medford were all undergoing similar service reductions, <br />although the Tri-Met transit system in Portland did not have to eliminate as much service as LTD since they <br />had fared better financially in recent months. <br />Mr. Muller, responding to a question from Ms. Piercy, commented that there was no current plan or similar <br />prioritization in place for reinstating service that was being cut once economic conditions improved. <br />Ms. Piercy asked the LTD representatives what the public’s general concerns were regarding the loss of <br />regular LTD infrastructure routes as opposed to any changes in the nature of the service provided by the <br />EmX routes. Mr. Muller responded that LTD was considering charging the public for the EmX service, but <br />that there were factors in place, such as the basic cost of implementing a fare system for EmX that would <br />prohibit doing so for the near future. Mr. Muller added that there were no current plans to increase the <br />frequency of EmX buses because it was currently cost-prohibitive to do so. <br />Mr. Pangborn added that there was a wide range of public response with regard to what LTD services were <br />being cut, and that a basic philosophical question being presented to LTD was whether it was going to <br />function as a social safety net, providing less frequent service over as large an area as possible, or as a mass <br />transit device designed to move as many people as possible in order to reduce traffic congestion and <br />pollution. <br />Ms. Piercy asked what conversations LTD had with the Oregon state legislature or any other government <br />entities about remedying access service. Mr. Eyster responded that conversations with the state legislature <br />were ongoing, but looked optimistic. Mr. Pangborn added that Governor Kulongoski was expected to <br />propose a balanced transit bill in the future that might access service. <br />Mr. Clark asked Mr. Pangborn to clarify the decision-making process used to determine service reductions <br />or adjustments, particularly with regard to the possibility of charging for EmX service. Mr. Pangborn <br />replied that while LTD was in initial preparations to begin charging fares for EmX service, many of the <br />persons utilizing EmX were already paying an LTD fare of one kind or another. Mr. Pangborn added that <br />EmX was already a highly subsidized service and that charging fares would not necessarily be of enormous <br />benefit. <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 13, 2008 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />