CC Minutes - 02/23/11 Work Session

Home Browse Search

derived from. Mr. Schwetz indicated the source of the information was employment files that LTD received periodically from the State of Oregon. Mr. Zelenka also favored a build option and wanted to select an option soon because of congestion, travel times, cars, climate change, and all the City's transportation planning documents, which were focused on providing choices. The community would not see the beneficial impact of those choices without the needed investment. Mr. Zelenka considered the route an investment in the future of Eugene and in creating choices. He "was not buying the Tea Party's line" that the investment was wasteful spending. Mr. Zelenka wanted to know why the groups surveyed by LTD chose the West 11` Avenue option. Mr. Schwetz could not speak for those groups but suggested they were persuaded by the technical merits of the proposal. Mr. Zelenka believed the West 11"713 1h Avenue option was justified by the increased operating costs required for the West 6` /7` /11` Avenue option. Mr. Zelenka asked LTD to explain to "all the people, all of sudden, who had become mass transit experts" why it did not use smaller buses. Mr. Pangborn offered a wheelbarrow analogy. He suggested that one would always buy the biggest wheelbarrow possible to move materials around one's yard. He said that LTD was building the system for the capacity it needed in the future. The smaller the vehicle, the more vehicles were needed to carry passengers at peak travel times during the morning and afternoon. LTD could use one articulated bus to carry the same number of people that three small buses could carry. Mr. Pangborn emphasized that the greatest cost to LTD in running a bus was the cost of the driver, so it made economic sense to use larger buses. He recalled the 30 -foot buses used for The Breeze service and said those buses could be used in some areas during mid -day but were not suitable most areas at peak hours. He concluded by saying that LTD was at financial capacity now and could not afford to deploy more buses. Mr. Pangborn concurred with a statement by Mr. Zelenka that small buses did not provide more than modest fuel gains and larger buses had longer life - cycles. He noted that LTD did use small buses for such things as "dial -a- ride" service. Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Pangborn enumerated some Oregon systems that employed small buses, including Klamath Falls, Astoria, and Tillamook. Other Oregon communities, such as Salem and Medford, used 40 -foot buses to respond to changing demand throughout the day. Mr. Zelenka asked how LTD's system compared to other systems of comparable size. Mr. Pangborn said that LTD ranked 30`' in productivity (number of boardings per hour) in the nation. The system carried many University of Oregon and Lane Community College students. Mr. Eyster suggested another benefit of the West 11` " Avenue option was the increase in trip time, which would make the system more desirable to "choice" riders. Ms. Ortiz did not need any more information to make a decision. She would not recommend TSM as an option because it did nothing to take buses off the roads. The City did not have sufficient money to take care of streets it owned and if the route moved forward LTD would be responsible for the costs of maintaining dedicated bus rapid transit lanes. TSM would not address that issue and could possibly result in larger buses on the roads, which would further shorten the life cycle of the roads. Mr. Clark said he thought funding was a valid and important consideration. He questioned if the State's financial capacity had changed the funding environment for State involvement. He requested an analysis of the State's capacity and how it affected the project. MINUTES— Eugene City Council February 23, 2011 Page 3 Work Session