05/14/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. : tional staff, addi tional money, addi tional equipment might step it up three months ~""'\ Presentations could be made by June 1974, discussions possibly within a few months from now. Manager said the ability to get the work done depends upon official adoption of the budget with the funds kept in it for this study. In answer to Councilman McDonald, Mr. Buford said the City could help with funds, there are limitations on Federal funds set by the Federal Highway Administration. Mayor Anderson brought discussion back to whether the ramps should be removed. 'Manager read a letter received from Eugene Chamber of Commerce endorsing completion of the Highway 126 extension. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to authorize staff to pursue all possible avenues to secure all necessary agreements and renegotiate exist- ing agreements to construct Alternate 2H. '1 I I I e Mr. Murray said he believes closure of the ramps would seriously hurt the surround- ing neighborhood, causing hardship and removing easy access. It would increase traffic through the general westside neighborhood, including those streets lying . south of the immediate area. Plan 2H appears to be less costly than any other alternative with any practicality. Mr. Murray said he would not argue against the Roosevelt Freeway but felt the question of the ramps should not be based on a ,projected freeway not even being considered at the present time. It is questionable:' that it will be constructed in view of its being a major part of the ESATS plan 'which has not been adopted and is now in the process of being revised. In addition, impact statement and Charter amendment requirements must be considered. Mr. Murray continued that since contracts with the State were signed on this project, the 1990 Plan has been adopted which includes several objectives of crucial importance to any decision on transportation, three of which are social costs to a neighborhoodj :of any route, avoidance of bisecting or isolation of neighborhoods, and the impact i 'of a route on a neighborhood. ! i Councilwoman Beal said that her objections to disconnecting the ramps seemed another;/ step taken to approve Highway 126. She did not like the Council's being put in the posi tion of having to make a decision on a portion of an entire plan which has i been repudiated and which was certain to be changed. She was opposed to making any! I commitments until the ESATS plan was updated. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. McDonald to amend the motion to provide that the Council ask the State Highway Division to implement Option'2G as a less expensive temporary solution until a determination is made on al- ternative, to be pursued. _~___n .. ._....~.A';...__P.,~~"....._....~_......... '_".. ~,- ~.. ._ e Mr. Williams questioned the expendi ture of $175,000 for Plan 2H', assuming 50/50 ;sharing of. costs with the State, when it would not be in operation for two years yet and with the possibility another alternative might be adopted in the meantime. 'Update of ESATS expected in perhaps a year and after that possibly some final de- cision on traffic handling system in the entire area would seem to make Plan 2G ,preferable to give short-term flexibility at the least cost. ,COuncilman Hershner agreed and fel t the Council would want to keep options open. Be also agreed with Councilwoman'Beal's expression of not wanting to be ,backed into approving the Roosevelt Freeway. He wondered whether Plan 2H could be ex- plored with the Federal government, at the same time putting 2G into operation. It was"his understanding chances of approval of2H are slim which would make ,choice of that alternate unrealistic. If ESATS is updated to exclude the Freeway, then machinery should be started now to see whether Plan 2H will be allowed, and use of 2G would allow that without committing $175,000. Councilman Wood questioned whether the Federal government would consider any sub- 'mission which was not an absolu~e request for approval of a certain plan. Manager wanted the Council to onderstand that Plan 2G also would have to have both State ,and Federal approval prior to implementation. He thought the City could explore ; the possibility of such a temporary arrangement. Mr. Royer stated his personal opinion that before approval is given by the Secretary of Transportation he would ,have to be sure that he is approving what the City wants. It would weaken the 'chance for approval if requests were submitted for trials of alternatives. . Councilwoman Beal noted that I-105 would have to operate under Plan 2G temporarily :while trying to renegotiate, the contract to make the change to 2H and that would give time to re-examine ESATS and determine the direction the City wishes to take. She didn't want to see the City default on its contract with the State and felt i negotiation for 2H was the only way to go. Discussion continued on manner of approach to Federal government for approval of temporary arrangement, allowing use of ramps and the opening of I-10S extension, interpr~t?~~q~of request for temporary arrangements as request for consideration -~:0"1 v:?!.Y>. . ~- - ---. - ---- - --- -~ - ---.----- . . '. . . ""1,' \5 , 5/14/73 - 11