Laserfiche WebLink
Responding to a question from Mr. PapS, Mr. Reinhard confirmed that the policy was intended to <br />apply to arterial and collector streets. The impact on local streets would generally be one of <br />spillover traffic. On many local streets and smaller collectors the City did not design for capacity, <br />but rather ensured that there were two-lane streets with adequate width, sidewalks, and on-street <br />parking. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 observed that River Road and Santa Clara did not have improved streets, and asked if <br />reducing LOS would create the need for improvements to those streets. Mr. Reinhard did not <br />anticipate that effect. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 asked if the trade-offs identified in Attachment A on page 261 had evidence behind <br />them. Mr. Reinhard said yes. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner agreed with the remarks of Mr. Kelly. He said that the tradeoffs identified in the <br />attachment were actually consequences and he was very concerned about traffic infiltration <br />through neighborhoods. Neighbors become upset, and the City's traffic calming budget was too <br />small to address all needs. He said that the City must acknowledge reality and increase its traffic <br />calming budget. <br /> <br />With the exception of Mr. PapS, the council indicated support for Option 2, calling for LOS E in all <br />areas of the community except state highway facilities. <br /> <br />Roadway Policy #3, Coordinated Roadway Network <br /> <br />Ms. Childs noted the split of adopting officials opinion on the testimony submitted regarding the <br />policy by Springfield and Lane County. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly favored Option 3 because the policy in question was a roadway policy. Other councilors <br />concurred. <br /> <br />Suggestion to Add an Access Management Policy <br /> <br />Ms. Childs said that Lane County and Springfield did not support the addition of such an access <br />management policy. She referred the council to the text suggested in testimony, reflected in <br />Option 2 in the packet: 'Manage the roadway system to preserve operational efficiency and <br />safety by adopting regulations to manage access to roadways and applying these regulations to <br />decisions related to approving new or modified access to the roadway system." <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Reinhard said that the Oregon Department of <br />Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration believed the policy would create an <br />impetus for the adoption of access management policies that are required by the State through <br />the transportation planning rule. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson about the linkage between the policy and the <br />City's interactions with Oregon Department of Transportation and Lane County about proposed <br />road improvements adjacent to I-5, Mr. Reinhard said there could be a linkage but he did not <br />think it was significant or that the policy was objectionable to the City. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 26, 2000 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />