My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 1: Ordinance on Transplan and Metro Plan Amendments
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2009
>
CC Agenda - 10/19/09 Public Hearing
>
Item 1: Ordinance on Transplan and Metro Plan Amendments
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:18:06 PM
Creation date
10/16/2009 9:58:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
10/19/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
101
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
City Code. If the commission wished to know what analysis the MPC employed to move the project, she <br />recommended the commission leave the record open for sufficient time to allow for the submittal of that <br />information. <br />Mr. Inerfeld clarified that the work plan agreed to by LCDC meant Eugene must bring TransPlan into <br />conformity with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), but that did not oblige the council to move the <br />projects to the constrained list. Mr. Yeiter concurred. <br />th <br />Mr. Hledik asked if the West 11 Avenue project was a five-lane project. Mr. Inerfeld said that the <br />description of the project was not “set in stone” but was illustrative of the project if built to Oregon <br />Department of Transportation (ODOT) standards. Mr. Hledik determined from Mr. Inerfeld that moving <br />the project to the financially constrained list did not bind the City to project construction. <br />Ms. Brotherton spoke to the question of whether a project on a futures list could be built before a project <br />on the financially constrained list. She said the answer was yes, and TransPlan actually spoke to the <br />question by stating that such projects could be implemented earlier if funding was identified. She noted <br />that the State lacked a requirement for a futures and financially constrained list, and the reason for the <br />separate lists in TransPlan was because the plan used to also serve as the federal plan. <br />th <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Yeiter, Mr. Inerfeld was unsure if study funds for the West 11 <br />Avenue project would be jeopardized by failure to include it on the financially constrained list. <br />Mr. Hledik recalled hearing of a legislative proposal for a Highway 126 study. Mr. Inerfeld said that <br />th <br />senators Prozanski and Holvey sponsored a bill to do a study of west 11 Avenue from Greenhill Road to <br />Veneta, and Lane County requested federal funding for the same segment from Representative Peter <br />DeFazio through the federal transportation reauthorization process. That did not presuppose a road <br />design. <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Bierle about the Council’s direction, Mr. Inerfeld said that after the <br />West Eugene Parkway was voted down by the Council, the Council gave staff direction to pursue the <br />th <br />West 11 Avenue project as one of the City’s top three transportation priority projects in north and west <br />Eugene. Ms. Brotherton said more recently, the Council considered the transportation work plan and <br />initiated amendments to TransPlan to remove the West Eugene Parkway project and add the two projects <br />in question. <br />Ms. Kneeland asked why the segment in question was favored by the Council. Mr. Inerfeld believed it <br />was because the council wanted to be able to serve the transportation demand that would have otherwise <br />be borne by the West Eugene Parkway. The segment of roadway in question was one of only two <br />sections of ODOT roadways in Eugene not constructed to urban standards; the other section was Highway <br />99 from Roosevelt to Garfield. <br />Ms. Bierle asked if the ODOT facilities planning study would address issues such as public transit and <br />incorporation of the recommendations of the West Eugene Collaborative (WEC). Mr. Inerfeld did not <br />th <br />think that any of the WEC recommendations pertained to this section of West 11 Avenue, but said <br />ODOT would consider such things. He added that the City participated in such studies and Lane Transit <br />District would also be solicited for input. He added that no funding had yet been identified for a facilities <br />th <br />study of West 11 Avenue. <br />Mr. Inerfeld said he would provide the commission with copies of the minutes reflecting the Council’s <br />discussions. Mr. Lawless inquired as to the time of those discussions. Mr. Inerfeld said they occurred in <br />MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 5, 2009 Page 3 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.