04/29/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e discussed by the neighborhood for the last four or five years; and 2) the question of whether the City's diverter policy in general makes sense. There are two distinct questions. The council can talk about the larger issue of whether traffic diverters in neighborhoods make sense without telling a neigh- borhood which has been working on specific diverter installations that the council is changing the rules after four years of effort on the neighborhood's part. Ms. Smith said that her understanding of council's action last week was to delay the report requested by Mr. Obie, who was not in attendance. Council approved one diverter because it had already been installed. She had thought that any action the council took at its last meeting was in terms of diverters that had already been installed and not with regard to those that would be installed in the next week or ten days. She may have misunderstood the report. Ms. Wooten's understanding was that the acting Mayor had instructed staff to proceed with the present trial diverter program in that neighborhood and had requested that council review the entire diverter policy at a time when Mr. Obie could be present, since Mr. Obie's question did not arise until the initial diverter had already been installed and the others were on their way. Mr. Gleason pointed out that all of the recently installed diverters are trial diverters. e Ms. Miller explained that staff had been instructed to proceed with the Broadway/ Tyler diverter in order to keep faith with the neighborhood. Mr. Obie asked about the urgency in installing the other two diverters. Mr. Hanks explained the traffic on 10th was diverting to Broadway. All three diverters were consi- dered part of the system. Diverters are usually installed in inclement weather. MS. Wooten noted that these were trial diverters. The surveys had shown that people in the area wanted to try them. Final approval for permanent installation would be up to the City Council. Mr. Hamel objected to the concept of the diverter program. Roads should be used. Ms. Wooten explained that when the inner city arterials are crowded, cars tend to use the inner city neighborhoods. The development of Monroe Street Park has added to that burden. It has the support of the neighborhood. Mr. Hamel asked that this issue be put to a vote by the citizens of Eugene. There are more people and there is more of a problem. They have had plans for arterials for the City of Eugene which those people in those areas have voted against. Now it is coming back to haunt them. It is the arterials, not the neighborhood streets that are the problem. Mr. Gleason said in this instance staff had a procedure which they were implement- ing. The City Council needs to decide if they want to re-examine the procedure. If permanent diverters are installed, staff needs to know that the arterials can handle the traffic. Staff would recommend that a diverter program or policy include in the trial period, examination of the arterials and where the flows go. Before the permanent diverters are placed, there must be included in the capital improvements program the incremental adjustment to upgrade the arterial e MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 29, 1981 Page 4