Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Nathanson responded to Ms. Bettman's comments regarding congestion at 5 p.m., saying <br />she believed that congestion at 5 p.m. was acceptable. One did not design roads for highest <br />peak hour traffic, one planned for a level of service throughout the day and congestion at a certain <br />time of day at a certain level was tolerated. Otherwise, the city would have eight lane streets <br />everywhere to accommodate traffic for a 15-minute period of time. However, intolerable <br />congestion and unsafe conditions were not acceptable. She said that Ms. Bettman referred to <br />sacrificing the quality of life in Eugene but in this case, if the parkway was not constructed, the <br />sacrifice would be for residents of west Eugene, not for the entire community. Ms. Nathanson <br />said that the parkway was not only for the convenience of commuter traffic, but to solve real safety <br />and congestion problems onto streets that ought to be for local traffic, specifically 11th and 18th <br />avenues. <br /> <br />In response to Ms. Nathanson's point about not designing roads for peak traffic, Mr. Kelly said <br />"would that that were so"; the policies in the draft TransPlan regarding designing road <br />improvements discuss designing improvements when peak afternoon level of service for the <br />roadway reached Level E, so one was designing for the worst hour of the 24-hour day. That was <br />the reason he objected to the policy; he had asked "what was it like the other 23 hours," or "isn't <br />mobility a more important measure than what happens at an intersection." However, the level of <br />service standard for peak hours was what remained. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart said that the traffic on West 11th Avenue was intolerable for more than the peak hours of <br />the day. It was intolerable because traffic on the State highway was competing with traffic on the <br />local system. <br /> <br /> The motion as amended failed, 3:5; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Fart, Mr. Pap~ <br /> voting yes. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rayor, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to recommend to the <br /> TransPlan adopting officials that West Eugene Parkway Units lA and 1B be <br /> included in the financially constrained project list of TransPlan, and that West <br /> Eugene Parkway Units 2A and 2B be removed from the future projects list in <br /> TransPlan, and that the City pursue the construction of Units lA and 1B in <br /> conjunction with ©D©T. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said that units lA and 1B stand alone. The motion would allow the City to supplement <br />the west Eugene system with additional connectivity. He said the project as modified had <br />minimum environmental impact and provided maximum impact. It also built on the State's design <br />and took advantage of already acquired right-of-way. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart asked how ©D©T would respond to the proposal. Mr. Carlson said that Bob Pirrie of <br />Region 2 of ©D©T indicated the State's interest in improving the State system. He thought it <br />would take effort on the part of the City to lobby ODOT to maintain the State's interest in the part <br />of the facility east of Beltline. Mr. Fart said he would vote in support of the motion but he thought <br />it extremely unrealistic and that the City could not expect the funding already allocated or <br />improvements to traffic in west Eugene. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said the council knew nothing about the scope of the project, and he was surprised the <br />council would proceed without that information. <br /> <br /> MINUTE--Eugene City Council February 26, 2001 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />