Ordinance No. 20258 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ALTERN~T~ES CONSI~P~D - ~P ppe d × C - S mma of AlternatiVes DismiSsed Goals Exceptions Avoidance A tematives An exception to the Statewide Planning Goals was adopted for the Approved Design in 1986. The exception provided the b~is for identifying the WEP in the TransPtam Because the Modified Project includes a preliminary alignment lying outside the WEP corridor that was approved through the exception, a new excePtion is required for the that alternative. The Statewide Planning Goals exception process requires evaluating alternatives to determine their "m~onableness." A number of alternatives were reviewed in a screening process and failed to pass a basic level of evaluation. The following alternatives are unreasonable on the basis of proven engineering and planning principles. Transportation System P~an A~temative The Draft Revision to TransPlan incorporates a balanced approach to the use of Transportation Demaud Management (TDM), Land Use Measures (LUM), and Transportation System Improvements {TSI)in order to achieve significant improvements over the base case or hmm trend scenario~ TDM implementation relies on voluntary and employer supported programs. LUM includes extensive implementation of mixed use nodal development along corridors that have been designated for development of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). ~I includes expansion of standmd public transit in addition to BRT. ~is alternative without ~e WEP is unreasonable because of the extent of continued deterioration of the transportation system in the project vicinity. Absent the WEP, levels of service (LOS) and volume to capacity ratios (V/C) are in excess of standards. The 'No Bu{ld' modeling runs include voluntaw TDM and V/C ratios exceed 1 ~0 at numerous intersection locations. In fact, continued degradation of the system amounts to a difference oftwo LOS grades or mom at seven intersections. TDM is expected to affect demand almost 4 times greater ~ public transportation. Therefore, the combined affect of TDM with transit is virtually no difference in the transportation operations numbers shown for the No-Build with TDM. ~is altemative~ the widening of West 1 ~th A~enue, could not reasonably meet the need for an access-limited parkway in West Eugene without substantial socioeconomic disruptions, as described below. Since the 1960s, development along and near West 11th Avenue has proceeded based on land use plans assuming a new east-west transportation corridor would be constructed, at which time West tith Avenue would se~e primarily local travel needs and the commercial and industrial establishments along its length. ConseqUently, the land use pattern for development along the West 1 lth corridor focused on commercial and light industrial businesses primarily oriented toward the street. Beginning in t~he 1960s, the City of Eugene h~ completed several successive improvements along West 1Ith to improve operating conditions(such as safe~ and capacity) and to bring it upto urban level ofservi~ for a major city arterial N 1993, construction was completed, widening the section between Garfield Street and Tyinn Street by 8 feet to accommodate a mm lane and pedestrian access, thus improving signalization timing, and inco~orating access consolidations. %ese modifications involved substantial right-of-way acquisition. Although studied, widening hhe road to three lanes E×HIBff C:2 - FIND~NGS 24