Item 1: Ordinance on Transplan and Metro Plan Amendments

Home Browse Search

City Code. If the commission wished to know what analysis the MPC employed to move the project, she recommended the commission leave the record open for sufficient time to allow for the submittal of that information. Mr. Inerfeld clarified that the work plan agreed to by LCDC meant Eugene must bring TransPlan into conformity with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), but that did not oblige the council to move the projects to the constrained list. Mr. Yeiter concurred. th Mr. Hledik asked if the West 11 Avenue project was a five-lane project. Mr. Inerfeld said that the description of the project was not “set in stone” but was illustrative of the project if built to Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) standards. Mr. Hledik determined from Mr. Inerfeld that moving the project to the financially constrained list did not bind the City to project construction. Ms. Brotherton spoke to the question of whether a project on a futures list could be built before a project on the financially constrained list. She said the answer was yes, and TransPlan actually spoke to the question by stating that such projects could be implemented earlier if funding was identified. She noted that the State lacked a requirement for a futures and financially constrained list, and the reason for the separate lists in TransPlan was because the plan used to also serve as the federal plan. th Responding to a question from Mr. Yeiter, Mr. Inerfeld was unsure if study funds for the West 11 Avenue project would be jeopardized by failure to include it on the financially constrained list. Mr. Hledik recalled hearing of a legislative proposal for a Highway 126 study. Mr. Inerfeld said that th senators Prozanski and Holvey sponsored a bill to do a study of west 11 Avenue from Greenhill Road to Veneta, and Lane County requested federal funding for the same segment from Representative Peter DeFazio through the federal transportation reauthorization process. That did not presuppose a road design. Responding to a question from Ms. Bierle about the Council’s direction, Mr. Inerfeld said that after the West Eugene Parkway was voted down by the Council, the Council gave staff direction to pursue the th West 11 Avenue project as one of the City’s top three transportation priority projects in north and west Eugene. Ms. Brotherton said more recently, the Council considered the transportation work plan and initiated amendments to TransPlan to remove the West Eugene Parkway project and add the two projects in question. Ms. Kneeland asked why the segment in question was favored by the Council. Mr. Inerfeld believed it was because the council wanted to be able to serve the transportation demand that would have otherwise be borne by the West Eugene Parkway. The segment of roadway in question was one of only two sections of ODOT roadways in Eugene not constructed to urban standards; the other section was Highway 99 from Roosevelt to Garfield. Ms. Bierle asked if the ODOT facilities planning study would address issues such as public transit and incorporation of the recommendations of the West Eugene Collaborative (WEC). Mr. Inerfeld did not th think that any of the WEC recommendations pertained to this section of West 11 Avenue, but said ODOT would consider such things. He added that the City participated in such studies and Lane Transit District would also be solicited for input. He added that no funding had yet been identified for a facilities th study of West 11 Avenue. Mr. Inerfeld said he would provide the commission with copies of the minutes reflecting the Council’s discussions. Mr. Lawless inquired as to the time of those discussions. Mr. Inerfeld said they occurred in MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 5, 2009 Page 3