05/14/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

;;:r . tional' costs-over - and above that of removal in' the present contract, - then the - Ci ty probably would be responsible for that additional cost. If it does not exceed what ~is allowed in the present contract, then it would be covered by existing funding. !Councilman Williams asked about the seriousness of the potential for rear-end :accidents in the use of Alternate 2G (moving northbound traffic on I-l05 to the linside lane to allow feathering of traffic from 1st to the outside lane), and how :long it would be before Plan 2Hwould be ready for use. Manager said anticipation of accident potential is based on the congested situation that occurs when merging ~traffic into one lane on a fast moving facility. Mr. Royer doubted that an estimate 'of the potential could be made, but it is there because of the vol umes using that 'lane and which will come to a stop in the merging movement. Traffic Engineer Williams said the hazard is in the use of the facility by northbound travelers not familiar with the pattern who will not know to shift to the inside lane. 'Mr. Royer estimated two years to complete the design work on Plan 2H, call for :pids, approval of SecretarY,of Transportation, etc. In answer to Councilman McDonald, Mr. Royer explained that the poorly designed Iramps and tendency of motorists on high-speed faci'li ties to misjudge stopping distances contribute to rear-end accidents. He explained that the present ramps were designed as temporary facilities to be used during construction of the over- 'head extension. Traffic Engineer in answer to Councilman Wood said that experience, _,has shown that additional signing would have little effect; regardless of how well :'a route is signed, accident problems continue. There was further explanation of traffic patterns and provisions for merging traffic from 1st Avenue to I-l05 after the extension is opened and before Plan 2H could be completed. Councilwoman Beal didn't understand staff's position that an environmental impact study would be required when the structure has already been built. Manager ex- plained that the impact statement was a question which would have to be resolved by the State with the Federal government. Although the design, contract, and con- struction were completed prior to requirement for impact statement, there is a question as to whether any change in that. design will require a statement. Mr. Royer , !said long- and short-term effect of a project would be one item covered by an impact 'statement; if continuation of a business became contingent upon use of the ramps, ~ :then they could not be removed later. Many have not realized the ramps were for Itemporary use during construction of the overpass. Councilman Murray quoted a letter from the State Highway Division in 1970 in answer to an inquiry about the ramps stating "...problem requiring removal of ramps not . one of merging. . ." but rather because of future design to accommodate connection ___ c _ of the OakHi1l section to I-l05. He asked what had happened in the meantime 'to make the merging significant when in 1970 the substantial reason for removal was the intent to build the Roosevelt Freeway. Mr. Royer said it appeared in 1970 evaluation was only on the construction of the westward route so merging was not investigated. He added that there could have been a number of reasons for that statement; he did not know the basis on which it was made. Councilwoman Campbell questioned the reason for the two-year period to have Plan :r.eady for use. Mr. Royer said the two-year period was an estimate only, in the imeantime traffic would be moved in the one northbound lane while construction is proceeding on the ramp. 2H \ : Howard Buford recalled that plans 10 to 15 years ago for an east/west oouplet using' '1st Avenue and Clark Street were frowned upon because it was felt it would bring too much traffic into the Whiteaker neighborhood, whereas with the present plans for closing the ramps that neighborhood fears it will be isolated. He said the most important factor to consider is the traffic flow to the west because of re- cent improvement on other facilities feeding traffic onto I-l05. He felt the Whiteaker neighborhood. would be better served by construction of Highway 126 since it would provide overpass over the railroad and free access to both east and west, although access to the River Road area would be limited. He said that acute traffic conditions could be expected in this area in the near future without completion of 105 and 126. He said that Alternate 2H i,s not as good as that now programmed recog- , :nizing the traffic loads projected, and added that it will not be any easier to con-; Ivince people in that area to remove the ramps after ten years than it is now, and :it will be necessary to remove them. ! In answer to Councilwoman Campbell, Mr. Buford explained that no impact statement !has been mads, or scheduled, on a faci11ity carrying traffic west to the Coast. 'However, there are plans ultimately to have four lanes to the Coast; route has been surveyed between Veneta and Poodle Creek, and 126 tentatively between I-105 and west of Eugene. Other than that the proposed alignment is not known. !Councilwoman Beal asked what the Council could do to hurry completion of the ESATS updating. She felt it of utmost importance to prevent further piecemeal planning. Mr. Buford said the City is already helping with planning staff, and that addi- ISO 5/14(73 - 10 .- - .~ . - -- ,. , I .