|
<br />. , ,
<br />~0[reroutlng-126 Tn-'-ffiatarea;-esfImatij-oI 'time' for Tmp1emen-tcit1.on of id. In answer
<br />,to Councilman Hershner, Mr. Royer said 2G could probably be completed more quickly
<br />!than 2H but that he seriously doubted approval would be received from the Federal
<br />lpeop1e on 2G. If the City does nothing, the ramps will be disconnected; if it is
<br />decided to renegotiate the contract, Plan 2G would be implemented while awaiting
<br />the outcome.
<br />
<br />.-
<br />
<br />:Counci1man Murray felt implementation of Plan 2G would preclude keeping the ramps
<br />operating. Councilman Wood felt adoption of Plan 2H would give a two-year time
<br />lag 9nder which an extension of 2G could be requested to give an extension of time
<br />wi thout cost. Councilman Murray took issue wi th argument based on "cost," saying
<br />,that $350,000 took on a different light when compared to cost of the entire project.'
<br />and 'that pursuit of Plan 2H would assure the availability of the 1st Avenue ramps
<br />: for public use.
<br />
<br />. Mayor Anderson asked if adoption of 2G would negate a pe17manent solution. Mr.Royer
<br />answered that a reason should be given for its adoption which would be the comple-
<br />tion and adoption of ESATS. Councilman Hershner felt 2G would be the only practical
<br />solution and thought Federal and State people would understand the situation to
<br />, allow resolution of the entire problem.
<br />
<br />, Manager noted that the discussi@n revolved-around optimistic timing for updating '!
<br />of ESATS and making of permanent decisions. But in reality that could take as long
<br />,as fi ve years. He said that over and over the statement has been made that ESATS
<br />: has been repudiated. There is a tendency to forget that while a political decision
<br />: to that effect has been made, from a traffic movement standpoint there is no statis-:
<br />,tical information to indicate that existing facts in the existing plan will not be
<br />las valid when ESATS is updated as when the plan was produced. Manager continued
<br />that after very brief discussion with the City Attorney, the Attorney is exploring
<br />the possibility of submitting a ballot measure to the voters based on schematic pro-
<br />jections of a number of choices of where Highway 126 might be located to try to
<br />determine someway of working within the Charter amendment, which will allow getting:
<br />. some public reaction to the idea of a Highway 126 without pinning down its location
<br />; but that would be SUfficiently definitive to give some impetus to proceeding with
<br />, the required impact statement. The amendment requires specific alignment and vote
<br />: within one year of actual construction. It might be possible in getting voter re-
<br />action on schematic designs, knowing it can't be within one year of construction,
<br />to have a challenge thereby getting into court to resolve practical questions with
<br />regard to the amendment.
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />. . _"_ . _ _ __ _ . ~ _ .". l...~ . ~
<br />There was further discussion in clarification of time for proposed opening of
<br />the I-105 extension in mid-June, traffic handling under alternatives 2G and 2H,
<br />, and purpose of the original motion and amendment.
<br />I
<br />
<br />: Mayor Anderson said he felt everyone recognized that the present arterial auto
<br />: transportation system is in limbo and outlook for resolving the issue not very
<br />i good. Furthermore, dependence of implementation of the 1990 Plan on a good
<br />; transportation system also puts that Plan in limbo. He said it is impossible to
<br />:.sleparate land use from the transportation system, ,and the subject of land use has
<br />, been overlooked in the current discussion. Mr. Anderson said it is most important
<br />to maintain the City's credibility in honoring contracts, and that any solution at
<br />this point should be considered strictly a temporary one. But of utmost importance
<br />, in any solution is the consideration of trading off between maximum cost and safety.
<br />. He thought $175,000 while not a great amount in terms of $16 million for the entire
<br />project still amounted to quite a bit in terms of the City's own budget where trade
<br />. offs to be considered are social programs, better housing. etc.
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />Councilman Hershner said he does not follow the philosophy of comparison between
<br />,the $350,000 and $16 million because it would seem a decision on that basis would
<br />;be a permanent decision. It would seem to be foreclosing options with regard to
<br />, the Roosevelt Freeway.
<br />
<br />: Councilwoman Campbell deplored the lack of input from the Planning Co~ssion or
<br />the LCOG Citizens Advisory Cbmmittee prior to a decision on this matter.
<br />
<br />Vote was taken on the amendment which would
<br />Plan 2G while exploring other alternatives.
<br />men Williams, McDonald, and Hershner voting
<br />Campbell, Murray, and Wood voting no.
<br />
<br />ask State to implement
<br />Motion defeated, Council-
<br />aye; Cbunci1men Bea1,
<br />
<br />, ; Corom
<br />5/9/73
<br />
<br />\.
<br />
<br />Vote was taken on the original motion to renegotiate State contract
<br />for implementation of Plan 2H. Motion carried, Councilmen Bea1,
<br />Campbell, Murray, and Wood voting aye; Councilmen Williams, McDonald,
<br />and Hershner voting no.
<br />
<br />, IS 2...
<br />
<br />5/14/73 - 12
<br />
|