06/22/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Burgoyne stated that if staff wants to close a street, Arthur Street - could be closed. Then a through street could be put on 24th Avenue to City View. She noted agreement with Ms. McDonald in regard to the traffic bumps. Mr. Stone noted that he felt the process of developing this proposal was excel- lent. Everyone had had a chance to speak and provide input. He commended those City employees that have been working on this project. This proposal had the least number of problems attached to it of any that were considered. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Hanks stated that two letters were received in favor of the closure and one letter in opposition. The possibility of closing Arthur Street was discussed, but staff felt it would be better if 24th were closed at Grant since Garfield and Grant are steep. The reason that 24th Avenue had not been extended was due to terrain problems between Cleveland and City View. In regard to speed bumps, this could be a severe liability for the City and could cause more problems for emergency vehicles than for passenger vehicles. Mr. Obie asked why 24th Avenue could not be closed at Chambers. Mr. Hanks stated that placement of a partial diverter was proposed but the neighbors were opposed to it. Ms. Smith asked why this problem is being transferred from a 34-foot street to a 26-foot street. Mr. Hanks stated that the volume of traffic on Arthur Street had been decreased by 1,000 cars and the increase on 22nd Avenue was only about 200, with the increase on Grant Street about 100. As he has noted before, the traffic volume of 600 to 800 cars per day is when people notice and complain. Ms. Smith asked about the potential problem of the width of the street and parking on both sides. Mr. Hanks stated that a narrower e street tends to discourage traffic and that 24th Avenue and Arthur are wider than Grant or 22nd Avenue. I~S. Wooten asked if there are more accidents since 1978 or if there is increased danger on other streets since the traffic diverter was installed. Mr. Hanks stated that there are not more reported accidents but generally single-car accidents hitting parked cars are not reported. Ms. Wooten asked if 23rd Avenue is paved. Mr. Hanks responded that it is not as a petition has never been submitted and it is not part of the dusty roads project. Mr. Lindberg asked whether emergency vehicles can get through. Mr. Hanks responded that they can. Mr. Lindberg asked if motorcycles are still able to get through. Mr. Hanks stated that anything that is done to allow emergency vehicle access will also allow access for motorcycles. The diverter should have a pleasing appearance and the appearance of this project will depend upon whether the neighbors are willing to maintain landscaping. Mr. Lindberg asked how much the project would cost. Mr. Hanks stated it would cost between $10,000 and $12,000 and that it is in the Tier II budget for next year, not in the current core budget. Mr. Lindberg asked about the cost of increased police patrols as opposed to the diverter installation. Mr. Hanks responded that increased police patrols soon become much more expensive than a diverter. Enforcement would be very expensive for this area. Mr. Lindberg noted that there are pros and cons when traffic diverters are proposed in conjunction with neighborhood needs. He thinks diverters are good if they are part of the e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 22, 1981 Page 4