CC Minutes - 04/26/00 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Meisner noted his long-term opposition to a Valley River Bridge. He said that transportation corridors were important but not at the cost of destroying neighborhoods. He said that there was no evidence that the bridge anywhere in the general vicinity of Rasor Park was needed to reduce pressure on other bridges or improve the roadway system. He was also not interested in Option D because he was not interested in a study that heightened the importance of finding a place for a bridge. He stated his belief there was no way to connect such a bridge to the traffic system efficiently, and noted his hope improvements would be made to the Washington-Jefferson Bridge to reduce congestion on that facility. Mr. Meisner said that currently, traffic patterns force those in central neighborhoods to use the Ferry Street Bridge to reach the northern pads of the city. Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Meisner's remarks. He acknowledged the mention in the briefing document about the Ferry Street Corridor Advisory Committee findings, but pointed out that the council had revised those findings to de-emphasize the bridge and focused on transportation demand management and improvements to the corridor. He noted that the advisory committee also discussed improvements to the Franklin/l-5 interchange. Mr. Kelly called attention to the statement on page 265 of the packet stating that the Valley River Bridge would decrease Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) on local and County roads, which was not what was originally written in the original memorandum; that memorandum indicated VMT would decrease on State facilities and increase on local and County roads. Mr. Kelly suggested that because of the importance of the Willamette Greenway and the fact Eugene had a much different riverfront than Portland, to the extent more river crossings were needed he wanted to make better use of the crossings that exist. He noted the improvements proposed for the Washington-Jefferson Bridge and said that would reduce pressure on the other crossings. He believed that the widening of the crossing at Beltline and Delta Highway was preferable to him, and suggested that project could be moved from the out years into the 20-year plan. Ms. Nathanson did not support retaining the Valley River Bridge as a project in TransPlan. However, she differed from Mr. Meisner and Mr. Kelly in believing that a study was needed, although she did not think it was urgent to embark on such a study at this time. Regarding Mr. Kelly's remarks about the council's reprioritization of the Ferry Street Corridor Advisory Committee recommendations, she noted that the council did not delete the proposal for a study of river crossings. She liked Option D with changes: rather than replace the bridge project with a study that needed to be underway by a date certain, she wanted a study evaluating a regional system of Willamette River crossings without the presumption a new crossing was needed. She said that things in the community were going to change, and where activities are located and new housing was located was changing. Ms. Nathanson said that many members of the community did not favor major new bridge crossings and had suggested a couple of small crossings rather than a big, freeway-sized bridge. Mr. Pap~ concurred with Ms. Nathanson. He did not favor a Valley River Bridge as constituted to this point, but thought the City would be putting "our heads in the sand" by not doing a study for river crossings for a 20-year planning process. He pointed out considerable new development was happening in the community that necessitated some type of crossing. He did not want to foreclose examination of those possibilities. Mr. Pap~ thought it was appropriate that Eugene had more pedestrian bridges than auto bridges at this time, but questioned whether the community could expect those facilities to be sufficient in the next 20 years. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 26, 2000 Page 6 Work Session