11/25/1985 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. McKinley responded that the T-2000 Plan process for review did not include e citizen input. The TransPlan could allow for amendments to project~ through citizen input. Mr. Hansen asked if policies and assumptions would be evaluated each year. Mr. Gleason said that there would not be a debate on policies each year, but that projects would be evaluated annually. Mr. Miller asked how a project could be added to the plan and Mr. Reinhard suggested that it would be better to add it now. There was further discussion regarding how to determine whether projects should be included or added to the TransPlan. Mr. Hansen suggested that the council needed time for a work session to determine how to make decisions about the TransPlan. III. 6TH AND 7TH AVENUE ARTERIAL Mr. Reinhard distributed and reviewed the memorandum explaining the alterna- tives for the 6th and 7th Avenues Arterial Plan. He also referred to the aerial photograph, routing two alternative plans. Ms. Ehrman asked if the State planned to expand the two-lane section of Highway 126 by Fern Ridge Reservoir. The staff knew of no such immediate plans. Mr. Rutan asked why Alternative #1 was not routed on 5th Avenue. Mr. Reinhard responded that there was substantial impact on businesses either way and that this suggestion had been investigated by the Citizen Advisory Committee and the State pre- e viously. Mr. Miller asked if 6th and 7th avenues could be two-way streets in order to allow business access in the limited section. Mr. Reinhard said that this was also considered, but found unfeasible. Ms. Ehrman asked if the plan was a freeway model. Mr. Reinhard explained that both alternatives are limited access roadways and that limited direct access is different from the freeway model. There is no direct driveway access, but there is at grade access at each major arterial: Greenhill, Terry, Danebo, Beltline, Seneca, etc. Mr. Holmer asked if elevation at the east end was considered. Mr. Reinhard said that the State did not consider it because of cost and local circulation, but that the Planning Commission had recommended elevation be studied. Mr. Reinhard referred to the section entitled, "Public Input" on the memoran- dum and explained that there has been a massive outreach program regarding this project. Nearly 100 people attended a half-day information session. He also referred to the recommendations listed on the memorandum. He said that the Planning Commission had recommended Alternative #1. Ms. Ehrman asked about the purpose of the project. Mr. Reinhard responded that it would provide an alternative to West 11th in order to alleviate traffic there. It would also serve the Willow Creek area. Mr. Hansen asked what would happen if the route diversion (in green on the map) from Alternative #1 to Alternative #2 was used, but originated on 5th e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 25, 1985 Page 5