11/15/1984 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

not construct Phase I, Mr. Martin said the alliance had been informed by State Representaive Carl Hostika that the highway funds would not necessarily be lost and could be reallocated to Phase II or III. Mr. Martin said the alliance - did not feel the widening project was justified, stating that planning data indicated that Level of Service E would not be reached in any portion of Phase I other than at the intersection of 6th Avenue and High Street. He added that the accident rate of Phase I was lower than the other two phases and that the worst carbon monoxide concentration was in the intersection of 1-105 and 6th and 7th avenues. Mr. Martin said that if the City wanted to demonstrate a serious commitment to making Eugene a livable community it would reassign funds to transportation improvements to Phases II and III were needs existed and promoting the city by reducing the influence of the automobile by such measures as restoring the transit goal to 15 percent, promoting flextime employment, creating carpool/ transit lanes during rush hours,'and exploring a light rail from West Eugene to the University and to Lane Community College. Mr. Martin stressed that the Federal Highway Administration was willing to fund the 6th/7th Widening Project by starting with Phase II and that the State was willing to reassign money designated for Phase I to Phase II and was willing to consider redesignation of Highway 99 from through downtown onto 1-105. He said a common ground must be found. He suggested that careful research and negotation between the involved players must be performed before any election was held. Richard Guske, 278 North Grand Street, stated that he had little to add to the previous testimony. He said his major concern was that the staff assistance e received on the project in terms of the research and the techniques had clouded the issue and should be improved. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Gleason, addressing the comments that he had misled some individuals, stated that he had been involved with the project for four years. He explained that the City had gone for 15 years without a State Highway Department-funded project of any significance and had spent great energy in maintaining the funding for the current project. He said it was his opinion that Phase II would not be included in the State's Six-Year Transporation Plan if the City did not construct Phase I of the widening project. Ms. Andersen stated that staff had extensively discussed with the State Highway Department obtaining continued support for funding of Phase I. She said she appreciated the support of the Legislative body in their continued work with the State Highway Department on the project. She felt that a risk was involved in not constructing Phase I and attempting to reallocate the funding to another phase. Councilor Obie said his greatest concern is with the risk facing the community in reaching a decision on the project. He said an election covering all three phases was appealing because it would demonstrate the impact of the entire project on the community and will create a greater interest on the project. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 1984 Page 5