|
<br />!.~.:!~?<~<>.~~,~~.~,! ~~~.L :~.I?: Sant~ Clar~qS.ch?ol Sjt~ Redevelopment PAGE 3 OF 36
<br />~ . . . ... ,- "-'<..l<. ~ .~.'- .x '" ._.v. ...., A.,.<.,.. ^...."".y.",,'^', -',,,v........". .,.....,.......,....,........,... ,,,.<'."",,'.... '>..A.~,... ....... "..".,u._.">.."~n."""".":<":<""x.,x,.",,,;+;o,......,.;,,,".,,><.v/_"......_..._.""'<".".:<~..'o.......""..............N..'.'.V".......<'....~..,..".."./'"..;..'N................v...................'<",.................,v.'.'....','..
<br />
<br />Memo dated March 23, 2007 - Ed Moore, AICP, ODOT Sr. Region Planner
<br />After revievving the comments presented by ODOT Region Planning, I respectfully offer the following
<br />summary of revisions:
<br />
<br />1. The intersections previously evaluated were chosen by the City of Eugene in their scoping
<br />checklist. As requested, \ve have contacted the Lane County to detel1l1me ifthey had concems
<br />beyond the City's scope, and they have concwTcd with the proposed scope. The only State
<br />facility within the area of influence is the River Road! Be1tline Highway interchange. It has
<br />been detennined that the amount of development generated traffic potentially impacting the
<br />interchange \\iould be \vithin nonnal day-ta-day fluctuations (less than one percent), and
<br />therefore 'vas considered insignificant.
<br />2. The planning horizon year has been confirmed with all three applicable agencies, and the year
<br />2022 was mutually agreed to.
<br />3. The only State facility within the area of influence is the River Road! Beltline Highway
<br />interchange. It has been detemlined that the amount of development generated traffic potentially
<br />impacting the interchange would be \vithin normal day-to-day tluctuations (less than one
<br />percent), and therefore was considered insignificant.
<br />4. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes are typically provided in traffic studies tor informational
<br />purposes, and the most recent available data was presented. None of the analysis was based 011
<br />the ADT data, and recent design hour volumes were obtained as required.
<br />). PM peak hour is ty1Jically evaluated as the design hour by transportation professionals, and the
<br />City of Eugene requested that hour be evaluated. Lane County ha-s approved the scope as well.
<br />There was 110 seasonal adjustment perfom1ed, as this site is yvithil1 an urban area, and is not
<br />adjacent to a recreational route or higln:vay.
<br />
<br />The conclusion has been updated based (111 the revised analysis.
<br />
<br />A copy ofMr. Jvloore's comments is included in Appendix 'A'.
<br />
<br />i(j~~) I~I'i::nch EIlg-ilwf'ring, In::
<br />
<br />August 28, 2007
<br />
|