Item 2A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

only on neighborhood collectors. Any traffic calming on local streets was paid for through assessments to adjoining property owners. Mr. Pap6 commended the staff materials and applauded the City and neighborhood residents for trying to get together on a solution. Mr. Pap6 asked for more information about the traffic study conducted by the neighborhood. Mr. McNeel said the neighborhood study focused on several access points to the streets in question and analyzed the destination and origin of those trips using a license plate survey. However, the problem was that the study area was smaller than the actual neighborhood itself, meaning there were internal trips that were counted as external trips. However, that was not a major issue for the City. Mr. McNeel noted that the hourly peak period volumes in the neighborhood study were almost identical to the City' s, suggesting the two studies were quite similar. Mr. Pap6 asked about comparative travel times. Mr. McNeel said the residents picked a destination that may or may not be the appropriate destination. In terms of travel demand and where vehicles were likely to be going, he believed a vehicle at the Chambers Drive and Lorane Highway intersection with the option of going down 28th Avenue to the east or south through the neighborhood was likely to use 28th Avenue because it was recently repaved and there was no impediment to movement. In the case of those residents who chose to drive over a heavily potholed street, it was likely they were going to the South Willamette Post Office and Albertsons, and all of those trips would realize significant distance and time savings by using roads through the neighborhood. Mr. Pap6 recalled his request for information about other neighborhoods on the periphery of the community that lacked collector designations. Mr. McNeel said there were no others. He noted other areas at the periphery of the community where streets had been designated as collectors for future purposes. Mr. Pap6 agreed with Mr. Meisner that the residents did not seem concerned about assessments at this time, but suggested that could change when assessments were actually under consideration. Mr. Poling referred to the study, which indicated the need for collector status is "at the margin." He asked what that meant. Mr. McNeel said the ranking in the City's matrix came out to be split between a 5 or 6 depending on travel demand assumed for the link. He emphasized that the reference was to a missing link. Mr. Poling referred to an article in that days' edition of The Register-Guard and asked if the City Engineer could determine design standards for unclassified streets. Mr. Schoening said the code allowed the City Engineer to determine the street classification for an unclassified street for assessment purposes. Mr. Poling asked if there was a significant difference in design of the street if designated a collector versus a local street. Mr. Schoening said no. He believed the design could be worked out with the residents. Mr. Poling asked if there was a standard blueprint for a neighborhood collector dictating the elements of the street. Mr. Schoening said yes, but through the context-sensitive design process, those elements could be changed. Mr. Poling said that the label of the street appeared to be the sticking point as the designs for either a local street or a neighborhood collector street in this area would essentially be the same. Mr. Schoening concurred. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 25, 2004 Page 5 Work Session