Ordinance No. 20257 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

It is not fair or possible to classify all of the opponents in a sweeping generalization. Most of the opponents do f~tl into the Category of absolnt; ;pponents. Thee W0~l~d oppose the ProjeCt, and fi~n~ fault with it no matter ho~¢ it turned out, sir~l;ly because they object }; the wh{Jle idek of road improvements and assessments of the adjacent property ovmers~ ther residents concerns O ' are more particularized. The ultimate question facing the City Council is simply whether the properties within the Local Improvement District receive a direct benefit from the local improvements made to Ayers Rod. k is th/s Heatings OfficePs conclusion that the properties do benefit and therefore should be assessed pursuant to the Eugene Code. Concerns about the design of the bike lanes seems to have become the major focus of opposition to the Hers Road assessment. Opponents claim that, because the flat surfhce of the bike lane is less than the C!ty standard of five feet, the bike lane is in violation of the City standards, wtfich leads them to a conclusion that the entire project is flawed and that there should be no assessments. The assessments for the benefits provided to the local residents do not include any portion of the bike lane. Therefore, there is no reason to conclude that the assessments should not move fo whether or not the bike lanes are designed within City standards or not~ It is not clear that the bike lanes do not meet City standards. The idea behind this design ora bike lane is that a path should be provided that is raised above the normal traffic tane, which should discourage vehicles from driving through the bike lane~ especially as they travel through the 2affic calming devices. The bike la~e is n~)t raised above ~he kraffic lane by an abrupt drop off, but by a slop~ that a bicyclist can ride up and down ifnecess~. Opponer~ts argue ~hat slope is an obstruction and that therefore its width should not be includ~c~ in the calculation of the width of the bike path. There is some irony in the fact that early in the process many of these same opponents ar~ed against the initial designs because the proposed Ayers Road was mo wide and would include ~ecessary improvements such as sidewalks and bike lanes. Bike lanes along busy street such as collector streets do pose some risk. It would seem that bike lanes along a collector street with traffic calming devices such as narrow and winding streets are in greater danger From an outsider~s Perspective, raising a portion of the bike lane above the regular traJ~fic flow seems like a good ide~ anal it does not s~ern to be too much of a deviation from ~e bike lane standards, if it is a deviation at all. The issue of traffic medians~ turn lanes and traffic markers all relate to the design of the road. Again, the first point t ' ' , ...... o start ~s that the residents satisfactmn or dmsat~sfactmn with these parts of the overall construction is unrelated to the basic question of the assessment. The residents are [ VING, CURBS AND GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, AND STORM SEWERS ON AYERS ROAD AND GILHAM OAD FROM AYERS ROAD TO HONEYWOOD STI*~EET FINAL ASSESSMENT Page 5