My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item C: Railroad Quiet Zone
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2008
>
CC Agenda - 02/25/08 Work Session
>
Item C: Railroad Quiet Zone
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/10/2010 10:24:41 AM
Creation date
2/22/2008 9:39:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
2/25/2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />RRQZ AIS 2/25/08 <br /> <br /> <br />Business Meeting – September 6, 2007 <br /> <br />City staff asked participants at the business/commercial property meeting for their input <br />on a number of potential at-grade rail crossing configurations that may lead to an official <br />railroad quiet zone in Eugene. A summary of the comments received follows. <br /> <br /> Should existing conditions be maintained (No railroad quiet zone in Eugene)? <br />? <br /> <br />Participants suggested collecting additional data before moving forward with a railroad <br />quiet zone. One participant noted that a quiet zone was “long overdue.” Comments <br />made during the meeting indicated a fairly even divide between those in favor of <br />implementing a quiet zone and those opposed to it. <br /> <br /> Implement quiet zone with no closures. <br />? <br /> <br />Participants expressed mixed opinions on implementing a quiet zone without closing any <br />streets. Each of the individual crossing treatments necessary to implement a quiet zone <br />would still affect surrounding properties and nearby neighborhoods. Some participants <br />indicated opposition to creating additional one-way streets due to the forced rerouting of <br />patron traffic. Business and commercial owners were particularly concerned about <br />changing the existing ingress and egress points to their properties. One participant <br />noted that one-way configurations could potentially negatively effect the new Monroe- <br />Friendly Bikeway. <br /> <br /> Implement quiet zone with 2 street closures (Madison and Lincoln). <br />? <br /> <br />Respondents favored this option over other, more extreme closure scenarios. One <br />participant noted the potential positive effect this scenario would have on their business <br />operations. Some noted concerns about shifting traffic from closed streets to <br />neighboring streets. Business owners located on Lincoln expressed dissatisfaction with <br />the negative impacts associated with a reduction in access through crossing closures. <br /> <br /> Implement a quiet zone with 3 street closures (Madison, Jefferson and Lincoln). <br />? <br /> <br />Respondents provided similar responses to the 2 street closure option. Positive <br />responses cited the increased probability of receiving State administered funding. Other <br />participants noted that closing three crossings would be too disruptive. <br /> <br /> Implement a quiet zone with 5 street closures (Monroe, Madison, Jefferson, <br />? <br />Lawrence, and Lincoln) <br /> <br />This option was universally opposed. <br /> <br /> Implement a quiet zone using quad gates at all crossings. <br />? <br /> <br />Most respondents indicated conditional support for this option. Participants noted <br />support for quad gates because of their minimal impact to existing conditions, however <br />those in favor also suggested this option was too expensive. <br /> <br /> <br />Railroad Quiet Zone Public Input Report Page 4 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.