CCMinutes - 02/23/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Nathanson pointed out when the council was considering BRT routes, considerable data on land use patterns, current and projected population density based on land use and zoning, expected infill and redevelopment, and anticipating ridership based on employment patterns and schools. She said that the selection of Coburg Road was based in part on an objective analysis and it would be interesting to revisit those discussions. Speaking to the BRT system in general and Coburg Road specifically, Ms. Nathanson asked if a system should be planned that would influence land use or respond to current and anticipated land use and zoning. She said the answer to that question would drive whether LTD moved ahead quickly to get something in place or wait to see how infill and redevelopment occurred. She commented that putting something in place was already complicated by contradictory requirements from the City for commercial and industrial development. She said that from her perspective as a bus rider, design elements that were most important to produce results were frequency of service, speed, appearance, and ease of use. Ms. Bettman asked how much had been spent on BRT to date and how much was being requested in federal funds. Ms. Hocken reiterated that $31 million was being requested for the Pioneer Parkway Corridor construction and $4 million for BRT vehicles for the pilot corridor. LTD Assistant General Manager Mark Pangbom responded that major expenses for planning and design of the first BRT corridor had been approximately $3 million, including both the federal share and local funds. He said that the total cost for Phase I design, construction, and vehicles would be approximately $22 million for four miles of corridor. Ms. Bettman stated her opinion that BRT without a dedicated right-of-way was just bus transit and not worth the cost of millions of dollars. She agreed with the suggestion that the council reconsider its selection of Coburg Road and look at other routes that could offer a dedicated right-of-way and better connections to high-density neighborhoods. She felt there were other corridors where public investment in infrastructure could stimulate private investment. Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Solomon's suggestion to reconsider other corridors. He said that Coburg Road needed to be a part of the 20-year vision and stated his concern that waiting to implement that corridor would create even more difficulties. He said he supported consideration of other routes if that would establish a second corridor in Eugene more quickly and with more exclusive right-of-way than the Coburg Road option. He asked the city manager and LTD to inform the council as soon as possible about what steps could be taken to efficiently reconsider routes for a second corridor. Mr. Meisner said he would not object to the council's reprioritizing and directing LTD to consider a Highway 99 route. He expressed regret that the amount of effort that had gone into the Coburg Road corridor would no longer be useful if another route was chosen and the Coburg Road route was pushed even farther out on the BRT timeline. He noted that earlier work on a possible 6th Avenue/7th Avenue corridor had determined that the route through downtown was all but impossible and there was unanimous and universal resistance to an 11th Avenue corridor. He said he was willing to reconsider the council's priority direction to LTD and cautioned that it would be naive to assume any other route would be easy. 2. Service Planning Presentation and Downtown Transportation Issues Presentation Ms. Hocken stated that approximately 65 percent of LTD's revenues were derived from the payroll tax and MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2004 Page 5 Work Session