Agenda Packet 2-19-19 Work Session

Home Browse Search

MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 52 JWN regarding the HWY 99 corridor. I wanted to know if any changes to the investment options are going to occur prior to getting feedback to neighbors regarding those investment options. Also, wanting to know when decisions are going to be made for which investments the city is going to be making. One other thing, I know some people in Bethel are very interested in what specific pedestrian and bike improvements are being made. Are a lot of the fine details in the alternatives analysis? Are the specifics of pedestrian / bike improvements likely to change prior to actual investment? Thanks for any info / your help. • We received a call in the City Manager’s Office about the scheduling of a recent open house, which happened to occur during a Jewish holiday and prevented many in the Jewish community from attending. The caller pointed out the 30th to LCC corridor is in proximity to 2 Jewish institutions and a Jewish neighborhood, where many would like to participate in this process. He said it would be appreciated if future scheduling could take into consideration Jewish holidays. He suggested you could reach out to those in the neighborhood or the Jewish institutions for assistance in finding workable dates. Paul Conte called at 2:50 on 9/13/18 to say he appreciated the clear and direct responses to his questions. He did not have concerns with either Highway 99 option based on his current understanding. He did note that it might be interesting to have a better understanding of the final capital costs on the WEE segment that the Highway 99 and River Road Corridor EmX Alternatives would run on in order to be able to explain the full benefit of using that infrastructure for multiple corridors. He is not requesting that analysis be complete at this time. He again complimented the clear communication and his appreciation that the project has clearly incorporated JWN feedback. He noted that this is contributing to building trust with LTD. • After leaving the meeting (of course) I thought of a couple of extra thoughts on the Key Messages document. I was pleased to discover that, during the meeting, discussions of transportation methods often included persons using mobility devices. In the Key Messages document, however, this category of users is left out, particularly in the "Safe, Accessible Transportation Systems for Everyone" category. I'm assuming this is because they are included in the "foot" category. So I don't know if it is necessary to include a separate category for persons using mobility devices if it would overly complicate what is supposed to be an overview document, but if there were some way to capture them, it could add to the inclusivity of the document. • About a year ago I became aware of the proposed “Santa Clara Community Transit Center” located south of Hunsaker Lane and north of Green Lane in Santa Clara. At that time I thought the project was in the planning phase. Just recently I learned that public hearings were held about the proposed transit center in April and June of 2017. I looked on the internet and found the Eugene Council Bill 5176 notes for the June 2017 public hearing. I am unhappy with myself for not knowing about the April 2017 and June 2017 public meetings in that I believe that some of the information presented at the June meeting was not accurate and I could have made those points known at the public hearings. In particular I am referring to the reasoning given in Bill 5176 that the proposed transit center will not significantly impact an existing or planned transportation facility (Goal 12 – Transportation). Exhibit A of the Bill notes that a worst case scenario was conducted and it showed that there would be a decline in the number of PM (I assume they mean evening?) peak hour trips (I assume when compared to placing a commercial development?). I believe the scenario used is not providing the real impact to the traffic along February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1