10/11/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

consistently has held to a 10-foot shoulder width over and above the two travel lanes, so the cross-section of the roadway would be the same with or without bike e paths. In addition, the proposed width would provide the potential for acceleration lanes. He said he had hoped the accident rate would not be made an issue. However, he cited the 121 nonintersection accidents in the period from 1971 to 1975. Traffic Engineer continued with regard to funding that outside, or federal, funding - that is, other than assessment - was not relevant unless the Council were to change the assessment policy. Concerning bike usage, Traffic Engineer reiterated the posi- tion that provision of bike facilities encourages use of bicycles. And safety of bikes on this type of road was certainly pertinent, he said. He pointed out the understanding that costs of improvements on this roadway in the past would have been met by gas tax funds. Access control and safety, according to the Highway Users Federation Report of 1970, he said, was three times safer with effective right-of-way and traffic access control in commercial areas. Future need for increasing capacity of the street would not be precluded by the proposed cross-section because the dis- tance between the curbs would be adequate if the bike lane was deleted. This estimate was based on criteria in ESATS update discussions; and, with Coburg Road carrying in excess of 40,000 cars perday, the proposed cross-section for Highway 99N was belt adequate. Traffic Engineer commented that it appeared pertinent to again address the median quest!.on. The process outlined by staff, if approved by the Council, he said, would be rpturned with at least two options - either a fully raised divider or a combina- tion of two-way left turn lane and raised divider at appropriate locations _ in time for consideration before a second public hearing on the project at time of contract award. That process would assure resolution of the median issue before the project design was finished so that whatever choice is made could be included in the final e design if the Council chooses to proceed with the project. Traffic Engeiner strongly urged that process be followed. Mayor Anderson suggested no questions with regard to the median at this time, rather to address only the question of whether the project would proceed. If that decision was affirmative, he said, then the question of the median would be taken up. Councilman Bradley asked if there were alternatives other than Highway 99N for bike traffic traveling north from Roosevelt to Fairfield. Traffic Engineer answered that the bike committee, in considering the Master Bike Plan, had looked at the possi- bility of utilizing the Burlington Northern right-of-way with the conclusion that even if the right-of-way could be secured, there was the question of whether it would be adequate. He said the Master Plan does call for a bike faci 1 i ty on Highway 99N, also on Bethel Drive itself to take movements from about Bethel and 99N. Over the long haul, he said, a facility might have to be requested on the railroad right-of-way, but even with that possibility, the proposed cross-section for Highway 99N improvement would still be the same; therefore, the assessment cost would still be the same based on present city policy. Council Bill No. 1247 - Paving Highway 99N from Roosevelt Boulevard to Barger Drive (617) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Haws that the bill be read the second time by - council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enact- ment be considered at this time. II -A-l Councilman Haws noted that the project was in his ward and that basically the proposal was the same as for any other street in the city - either it is improved or it isn't. L.f8~ 10/11/76 - 7