Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
<br />bilities as well. Ms. Wooten asked if aside from minor inconveniences, the <br />effect of the diverter was to reduce the amount of traffic in the West Butte. <br />Mr. Hanks said yes. . <br />Ms. Schue asked what the total traffic problem is in the area. She also asked <br />if there was a traffic problem perceived by the Police Department. Mr. <br />Hanks stated that John Etter, Parks Design, stated that the diverter should be <br />removed and that it is an inconvenience for personnel as well as a new hazard <br />created by those driving around the diverter. <br />Mr. Lindberg asked what the risk manager1s concern was regarding driving through <br />the parking lot. Mr. Hanks stated that it is unsafe and the feeling was that <br />the parking lot was for parking and streets are for driving. People change <br />routes because of a time savings. There is no way to change this street to make <br />enough difference in the time it takes to travel down it. Mr. Lindberg asked if <br />it is part of the proposal to eliminate the parking lot. <br />Mr. Hanks stated that the primary purpose of the diverter was to slow the <br />traffic down. The staff recommendation is to remove the diverter and have <br />traffic flow the way it was prior to the installation of the diverter. Mr. <br />Lindberg asked if it is traffic volume or speed that is the problem. Mr. Hanks <br />replied that they are both problems. Mr. Lindberg asked if construction of a <br />new street was a serious consideration and, if so, where it would be. Mr. Hanks <br />stated that has been considered several times. However, it would cost several <br />hundred thousand dollars to build a street on the south side of the butte. <br />Also, the visual effect has not been assessed. <br />Mr. Gleason added that Cheshire Street was the compromise and it was constructed . <br />in 1959. There are no real alternatives. Mr. Lindberg stated that the council <br />is about ready to deal with the TIP and the widening of 6th and 7th avenues and <br />asked if this would induce people coming from the Ferry Street area to use that <br />route. Mr. Hanks stated that the railroad tracks will remain a deterrent. When <br />the Chambers Connector is built, it will help some. <br />Ms. Wooten stated that the majority of those opposed east of Pearl Street were <br />residents of Park View Terrace. She asked if the survey questions included <br />reasons why people were objecting to the diverter. Joe Hessler, Public Works, <br />stated that most people did not give a reason. They just said they were against <br />the project. <br />Public hearing was opened. In favor of retention of the diverter: <br />Drew Johnson, 409 Clark Street, stated that he lives on the main route of <br />traffic. The Whiteaker Refinement Plan indicated action should be taken to <br />reduce the traffic. Council adopted the Diverter Policy in 1975, which set <br />forth criteria for making diverter determination. The staff report now only <br />addresses the traffic criteria. A survey was taken and opposition by Park View <br />Terrace is only to this method of traffic control. Many residents feel 5th and <br />6th avenues will not be viable alternatives. In 1980 council noted there was a <br />problem. He would request that, the diverter remain until alternatives are <br />proposed and put into place. <br /> . <br />MINU!ES--Eugene City Council August 10, 1981 Page 6 <br /> ~ <br />