Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Childs clarified that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) was requesting the project <br />be included in TransPlan, rather than ODOT. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked why the project was not included in the context of the West Eugene <br />Wetlands Plan amendments the council just considered. Ms. Childs said that the issue was one <br />of timing. She reminded Ms. Bettman that the plan amendments had started four years ago, and <br />the modified project alignment had not been identified in time for inclusion in the amendments <br />package. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding the impact on the TransPlan project list if <br />all phases of the West Eugene Parkway were included in TransPlan, Mr. Reinhard said the <br />impact would be to eliminate virtually all other State projects because no money would be left for <br />high-priority ODOT projects. Mr. Pirrie said that the impact would amount to reprioritizing the <br />projects in the constrained TransPlan list. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey asked Mr. Pirrie if the FHWA requirement was negotiable. Mr. Pirrie did not know. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. PapS, Mr. Pirrie confirmed that approximately $17 million was <br />available for State projects in Region 2 on a biennial basis; the project in question was a <br />modernization project that added capacity. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 asked if the modified project alignment was consistent with the 1986 vote. Mr. <br />Reinhard said the City Attorney had advised that minor shifts were within the route approved by <br />the voters. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner did not think the 1986 vote approving the parkway with 80 percent of the voters <br />casting a vote in favor of the facility should govern the council's actions now as "votes were a <br />snapshot in time at a particular time." He did not think funding the project simply to keep the <br />dollars in the region made sense. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked Mr. Pirrie to speak to the issue of project need. Mr. Pirrie referred to the draft <br />Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) on page 80 of the meeting packet and <br />reviewed the project objectives. Those objectives included the provision of a major access- <br />controlled east-west connecting arterial for intra- and inter-regional travel through the western <br />half of Eugene between Highway 126 to the west and Interstate 105 and Interstate 5 corridor to <br />the east, improvement of access to the west Eugene industrial area, provision of a better link <br />between residential areas and downtown to support orderly and planned growth, relief of <br />congestion and improvement of safety on West 11th Avenue by removing most intra- and inter- <br />regional traffic and some local traffic from the most hazardous section of West 11th Avenue, and <br />implementation of the regional roadway system as envisioned in TransPlan. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked if ODOT had any intentional actions planned to remediate traffic conditions on <br />West 11th Avenue, such as lane blockages or signage, or was the parkway a capacity-building <br />process predicated on the hope that traffic would move. Mr. Reinhard anticipated signage but <br />not lane closures, given that TransPlan still envisioned that West 11th Avenue would remain an <br />arterial street. He said the parkway was not intended to relieve traffic to make West 11th Avenue <br />a quiet, friendly street, but rather to prevent gridlock, given planned land uses. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that for those living in west Eugene, West 11th Avenue was not working fine. <br />The project had been projected to bring relief to West 18th and West 11th avenues. The project <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 11, 2000 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />