CCMinutes - 02/23/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Berkeley and would probably not be available when the BRT vehicles went into service, but could be added later. He said he was confident the vehicles would be ready on schedule, with a prototype available in mid- 2005; however, LTD's fallback position could be use of the regular articulated buses, with some minor design changes. He expected to conclude negotiations with New Flyer on a firm delivery price within the next two weeks. Mr. Meisner commented he did not recollect a discussion about a downtown-to-downtown pilot route that would be tested for a time before the system was expanded, but rather a 20-year development plan for a system. He said that the time required and expense just to achieve a reduced Phase I were issues for him and asked where the system would be in 20 years. Referring to the complications of a route on Coburg Road, he asked board members to describe how that situation would be in 10 years, when route construction was planned. He also asked if lack of a guidance system on the BRT vehicles meant they would not be able to use a guideway system with narrower lanes. Ms. Hocken replied that LTD was committed to a full system and was working as quickly as it could within its funding constraints. Ms. Ban added that expansion of the system was also based on opportunity, such as was presented with the Springfield corridor. She said the 20-year plan needed to start with getting a BRT route in operation to develop momentum for the rest of the system and LTD had to balance the need to keep the fixed route system operational and functioning while building an infrastructure for the future that would meaningfully address congestion problems. Mr. Meisner suggested that the LTD board integrate the concepts Ms. Ban mentioned into a re-examination of its long-range plan so the public would better understand the issues. Ms. Hocken cautioned that the council should not get the impression that LTD was going to abandon the idea of a Coburg Road corridor; rather, the board was looking to the council for advice. Mr. Kelly remarked that discussions about testing a pilot corridor were based on an initial plan for a corridor that ran from Thurston to West Eugene and did not apply to the downtown-to-downtown route, which was not sufficient to provide realistic feedback about how BRT would ultimately work. He noted that TransPlan recognized the importance of transit, but he did not think the community had decided, as underscored by the Coburg Road conflicts, whether it wanted a decent transit system that would serve transportation needs through the next several decades. He stated that as time passed, he saw less commit- ment to BRT from the community and LTD. Mr. Kelly observed that the Coburg Road Study omitted the major policy of an exclusive right-of-way, which was mandated at 80 percent for the system by council resolution. He said that BRT should be abandoned and other options considered if that amount of exclusive right-of-way could not be achieved. He added that the public would adapt to losing left-turn access along Coburg Road and while he understood why the stakeholder group had looked at alternative routes, BRT corridors should be major arterials. He expressed concern that the Coburg Road schedule was constantly changing and the timeline extended. Ms. Solomon suggested that a Highway 99 corridor to the airport could be considered instead of the Coburg Road Corridor. She speculated that in ten years, development in that area would make the route productive and, because Highway 99 was a State road, perhaps the State could assist with funding. She asked if the selection of Coburg Road as the next corridor could be changed. Ms. Ban said the selection of Coburg Road was made by the City Council and any change would need to be initiated by the council. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2004 Page 4 Work Session