04/26/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Lieuallen said his understanding regarding the Community Meet proposal was that they were assuming a connection from the bridge to a westerly arterial .of some kind. Mr. Snowden said he understood their westerly ~ connection was with the Roosevelt truck route. Two connectors were .., proposed: One from River Road over railroad tracks to Chambers; the other from the Northwest Expressway and River Road to the Roosevelt Freeway. He said with the Community Meet proposal, much of the traffic would use that Roosevelt truck route as a defacto freeway and that is not the function TPC envisioned for this truck route. He said if that were the case, then it opens up the subject of the old Roosevelt Freeway alternative. Mr. Lieuallen thought the basis for rejection the old Roosevelt Freeway was becauSe it ran through the Rose Garden and residential areas. Mr. Snowden said the TPC had a different alignment in that it would parallel with the railroad tracks and tie into I-10S. Under the Community Meet proposal, it would be a limited access facility, a four-lane freeway that would have an interchange at Valley River and would take out some of the shops at Valley River. He noted this would be a very expensive project. Mr. Lieuallen said he was confused as he thought the Roosevelt Freeway was rejected several years ago. Mr. Snowden said officially it had not been rejected. TPC did not recommend it as an alternative, but it was one of the major issues that prompted the study. Mr. Delay wondered if the connector were put in as suggested by Community Meet, whether or not it might accommodate more traffic with less conges- tion and less miles traveled. Mr. Snowden said it would be more efficient for traffic'using River Road, but that traffic only comprises about 10 to 15 percent of the entire traffic on 6th and 7th avenues. He said there was a question as to whether or not the Roosevelt route would function _ more as an expressway. TPC did not recommend that, but recommended using . it more as a truck route to provide access to the industrial areas. Mr. Delay wondered to what extent, given the framework for an update, and deferral of capital investment, whether this would be creating the mechanism for a total commitment to this plan if adopted in its present state. Mr. Snowden said the program would have to be reviewed and approved annually, with an update every five years. However, in some sense he felt there should be some committment made to some of the projects. However, he felt it might be a mistake to adopt projects wherein-there might. be no intent of pursuing. Such actions would noticeably affect properties involved in such projects. He said each specific project would have to come back before Council for specific hearings and approval. .Mr. Lieuallen requested Gary Spivak, Community Meet, to respond to the comments made. Also he asked Mr. Spivak to repond to the general intent of the Community Meet proposal that many of the smaller projects be deleted and a more general plan be adopted. Mr. Spivak said it was a question of interpretation between opinions of what is going to happen to the Goodpasture Island Freeway. Community Meet proposal felt it would take a considerable amount of traffic from River Road off of the 6th-7th Freeway. If an alternative route were provided, then neither would have to be freeways. For example the Roosevelt route could take more traffic than projected now, and he felt there would be no problem in expanding it to a four-lane road to handle that traffic. - 4-26-78--12 303