Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br /> version of the elevated option between 5th and <br /> Highway 99. If the alignment and ramp geometry can be <br />e modified to lessen the right-of-way impacts of an <br /> elevated section, it could result in substantial <br /> advantages: <br /> --provide unimpeded access between 5th Avenue and <br /> businesses north of 5th which are dependent on that <br /> access (the Barker/Cabax property and Pacific <br /> Petroleum Company) <br /> --provide a grade separation across two of the three <br /> rail spurs between Seneca and Highway 99, which <br /> would improve traffic operations and safety and <br /> would respond to concerns raised by Southern <br /> Pacific Transportation Company and by National <br /> Fire Fighter Corporation in regard to potential <br /> future abandonment of those spurs. <br /> --result in separation of through and local traffic <br /> on the new highway, which would improve traffic <br /> operations and safety. <br /> --eliminate the need for the connector between 5th <br /> Avenue and the new highway at Wilson Street, thereby <br /> eliminating the impact on National Fire Fighter <br /> Corporation. <br />e If the elevated section proves infeasible, the design <br /> of the at-grade highway should be modified, if possible, <br /> to relocate the Wilson Street Connector (to preserve <br /> National Fire Fighter Corp.) and the connector between <br /> 6th and 7th that would displace Ambassador Hair Salon. <br /> In addition, attention should be given to the need for <br /> traffic signals, auxiliary through lanes or turn lanes, <br /> and other design features to ensure the safe and <br /> efficient operation of the highway for both through <br /> and local traffic. <br /> Finally, we urge that the other concerns included in <br /> our motion of December 16, 1985, be addressed, especially <br /> the need for possible future expansion of the highway, <br /> and the importance of providing landscaping as an <br /> essential component of the project. <br /> Mr. Rutan said the council should not design the highway and some design <br /> issues are not included in the mot ion. He said the counci 1 should <br /> recommend an alignment only. He suggested the rest of the motion be <br /> submitted as some concerns of the council with the minutes of the July 15, <br /> 1986, hearing to the Department of Transportation. He said the motion <br /> implies that the highway can be designed lito make everyone happy.1I He did <br />e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 16, 1986 Page 5 <br />