Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Rayor said he would vote against the motion because of the unavoidable proximity of such a <br />ramp to the river and other natural features in the area. He did not believe such a bridge would <br />be environmentally acceptable to the community. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 supported the motion, saying the community needed to find other ways to travel across <br />the river, and working with existing facilities such as the I-5/Franklin interchange might be the <br />best way to do so. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr asked if there were any conceptual drawings of such a bridge. Mr. Schwetz said that a <br />committee had investigated the option but there was not much hard information available. Mr. <br />Farr suggested that the bridge would be challenging from an engineering viewpoint. He asked if <br />the project involved the condemnation of private land. Mr. Reinhard said it was too early to know. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. PapS's remarks, saying the community should make the best use of the <br />crossings that exist, and the crossing in question was one that could be augmented. He believed <br />it would reduce traffic volumes on the Ferry Street Bridge. He said that it was necessary to move <br />the project to the 20-year list, but that did not guarantee the bridge would be built. He shared Mr. <br />Rayor's concerns about the environmental impacts of such a ramp, but believed that those <br />impacts would be the same for every contemplated bridge crossing. He noted that such a ramp <br />could not be built without an environmental impact statement. He agreed that the addition of <br />such a ramp could be an engineering challenge. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey supported the motion, suggesting it created an opportunity to examine the <br />possibility of a ramp onto I-5. He agreed with Mr. Kelly that any location over the river would <br />have negative environmental impacts. He was concerned about overloading the Ferry Street <br />Bridge because of its overflow impact on the center of town, and a ramp onto I-5 would mitigate <br />that problem. Mayor Torrey emphasized the importance of placing the project in TransPlan so <br />that City representatives for lobby for funding for it. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. <br /> <br />The council next discussed projects near the urban growth boundary. Ms. Taylor wanted to <br />eliminate all projects near the urban growth boundary as she believed such projects encouraged <br />sprawl. She added that she wished to "start over again" and include more bicycle paths and <br />facilities for pedestrians, and many fewer roads than were called for in the draft plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly noted his hope that the bicycle and pedestrian elements of TransPlan could be <br />improved. He said that while he philosophically shared Ms. Taylor's concerns about projects near <br />the periphery, he believed they should be addressed on a project-by-project basis rather than by <br />wholesale elimination. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor maintained that the City was "building things out to nowhere" and that only <br />encouraged development in those areas. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr pointed out that the bulk of remaining buildable land in Eugene was close to the urban <br />growth boundary. The community needed an effective transportation system, and he favored <br />more bicycle facilities and an efficient public transit system. Mr. Farr said badly planned or under <br />planned facilities would only keep people in their automobiles longer. He agreed with Mr. Kelly <br />that projects should be looked at individually, but said without an effective transportation system <br />that accommodated cars people would be driving even more. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 7, 2000 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />