Laserfiche WebLink
time-based routine crossing that reduced the duration of the horn, but that was somewhat offset by the <br />increased traffic. <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy observed that none of the crossings mentioned in the agenda materials were in the Bethel area. <br />Mr. Larsen replied that the downtown location was a place to start exploring the idea of a quiet zone. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked for a clarification of the public process associated with establishing a quiet zone. Mr. <br />Larsen said the public process had not yet been defined and agreed it would need to be carefully crafted to <br />involve citizens. He said the question before the council was whether to even begin the process of creating a <br />quiet zone, including the possibility of changing the direction of travel and closing crossings. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked how much money might be available through State Section 130 funding for crossing <br />safety improvements. Mr. Larsen said it was a negotiated process with the State, depending on what the <br />City was willing to do with respect to closing crossings. He said the initial offer from the State required <br />closing half the crossings, which seemed untenable to the community, and the State was willing to negotiate <br />on that issue. He indicated that no specific level of funding had been discussed. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said the motion would need to specify that a range of options would be studied. She said the <br />impact of closures and conversions to one-way on the street system needed to be examined, including <br />whether the one-way conversion could occur on only a portion of a street. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly appreciated Mr. Larsen’s pursuit of information and options as the quiet zone was an important <br />quality of life issue, particularly if the City wanted to encourage more residential development in the <br />downtown area. He shared Ms. Bettman’s concern and emphasis on the public process as the motion <br />seemed to imply that action to close crossings would be taken without further public involvement. He <br />suggested rephrasing of the motion to direct the City Manager to study rather than take the necessary steps <br />to obtain State Section 130 funding and require a public input process prior to construction of any <br />improvements. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor agreed that a public process should precede any action. She was concerned that action was <br />being proposed for safety reasons when the actual problem was noise. She asked if there was evidence that <br />any of the crossings was unsafe. Mr. Larsen replied that only the High Street crossing had a crash and that <br />was several years ago; while crossings were inherently dangerous none of the crossing stood out in terms of <br />repeated crashes. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said she had heard from residents who lived near the tracks that the sound did not bother them. <br />She was not certain how many people were bothered by train noise and was not willing to vote for the <br />motion as presented in the agenda item summary (AIS) or spend staff time on the matter until there was <br />public input. She did not favor closing streets or returning to one-way streets. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé agreed with the need for public input before changing streets. He said the City’s connectivity <br />policy should be examined and if necessary exceptions made for the railroad corridor. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling asked about the nature of the High Street crossing crash and history of crashes at crossings. Mr. <br />Larsen said that a pedestrian ran into the side of the engine at High Street and he was not aware of any other <br />accidents at rail crossings. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 26, 2006 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />