Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Papd asked which of the three alternatives represented the best traffic engineering. Mr. Pirrie said that <br />endorsement of one of the alternatives would be wrong at this point. He said that was what the evaluation <br />process was all about. He did not want to influence anyone's judgement. <br /> <br />Mr. McRae said that all three options meet operational standards. Option 3 may be better than Option 2, <br />which may be better than Option 1. <br /> <br />Mr. Pirrie emphasized that the operational safety and capacity of the interchange was ODOT's primary <br />concern. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman thought the project timing was fortuitous because enough data had been gathered to project <br />baseline data before the potential change of use represented by PeaceHealth. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked about the relationship of transit service to the interchange. Mr. McRae responded that <br />ODOT used the assumptions regarding TDM and trips relative to the benefits of public transportation, and it <br />was not building for more capacity than what was needed. The standards applied within the proposals also <br />accommodate transit. Transit travel times would be improved. Mr. Reinhard added that the stakeholders <br />included LTD staff, who actively participated in the process. In addition, bicycle and pedestrian modes were <br />considered. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner was also interested in knowing more about the impact of the proposed PeaceHealth/Arlie <br />development on the interchange. He said that the land as presently designated was not as intense a use as that <br />proposed, and he agreed about the added complication created by the rezoning of the sports complex. He said <br />that there were finite dollars available and only one opportunity for a fix. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner expressed concern that the plans for the interchange did not do anything to mitigate the impact of <br />traffic on other roads, such as on Harlow Road. He did not perceive the project was comprehensively planned <br />until staff had factored in mitigating routes and the impact of future development insofar as those plans were <br />known. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mayor Torrey, Mr. Pirrie discussed the possible project phasing and funding <br />were an additional $18 million available. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said he believed if the City worked with the State over the next month or two it could get some <br />additional funding from the State, reducing the shortfall in TransPlan. He indicated that the project was <br />needed regardless of the relocation of PeaceHealth in Springfield. <br /> <br />At the request of Mayor Torrey, Mr. Wieseke used a schematic of the interchange to illustrate the two phases of <br />the project. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that while none of what was described was predicated on PeaceHealth, ODOT would look <br />foolish if the facility was undersized. No one has indicated to the decision team if that issue has been studied. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly noted that the elected officials had asked the State to indicate what the decision team's authority was <br />after completion of the Environmental Assessment. There was concern on the part of Springfield on its <br />authority to weigh in on future discussions. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 10, 2001 Page 10 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />