CC Minutes - 12/13/00 Work Session

Home Browse Search

He said that the residents needed to know the impact of the project and that it would eliminate other State projects. Mr. Meisner did not think the project addressed the need that existed. He did not think the project provided connections to other pads of the transportation system. Mr. Meisner said that he believed in the "if you build it they will come" analysis of system improvements, and had seen nothing in the parkway plans outside the eight percent reduction in projected congestion that made the investment worthwhile. He thought the motion made sense. While he thought it important that the State funding remained in the area, he did not want it unless it was for a good project. Ms. Nathanson said she objected to the federal imposition because it failed to recognize reality. The country did not build a complete interconnected interstate highway system with all money identified for the entire system, yet a small local government was being asked to do that, which she considered very unrealistic and unfair. Ms. Nathanson noted that the motion offered by Ms. Bettman did not preclude construction of the parkway. She did not think emphasizing alternate modes and system improvements were the complete answer to the transportation issues in west Eugene as much of the terrain in the area was hilly, discouraging residents from bicycling or walking. Ms. Nathanson pointed out that the discussion was not only about intracity travel but about intercity travel as well. Some of the problems created by West 11th Avenue were a result of a State highway passing through the city, and she thought this was a good time to use State expertise and State money to solve a problem that was created by a statewide transportation system. The parkway could take intercity traffic off local streets. Regarding the issue of public input raised by Mr. Farr, Mr. Kelly said that the council had heard considerable testimony about the West Eugene Parkway during the TransPlan adoption process and had received many e-mail messages and letters about the issue. He said he was sensitive to the traffic issues in the west Eugene area and would not have supported the motion without the study Ms. Bettman proposed. He said there was no "magic bullet" to traffic problems in west Eugene. Mr. Kelly said a wide variety of tools could be used, such as access management. Mr. Kelly said that there may be a need for a new arterial street, not a limited access highway, from th th 6 and 7 avenues to Beltline. He did not think the West Eugene Parkway would solve the problem Ms. Nathanson wanted to solve given the modeling projections. He did not think residents would notice an eight percent reduction in congestion on West 11th Avenue in 2015. Mr. Kelly noted that there was no structural solution proposed by the State to keep traffic on the parkway and off Eugene streets. Mr. Pap~ said that councilors opposing the parkway appeared to be minimizing a vote they could not ignore. He thought the only way to put the public's sentiment to a test was to ask the community to vote on the issue again. Mr. Pap~ said that there were many activists who appeared before the council to testify, but there were many other members of the public who did not testify but did vote. Mr. Pap~ said that the comment about the parkway he recalled best came from Dave Kleger of the Lane Transit District Board, who was a supporter of mass transit but who suggested that not to build the parkway was to break a promise to the voters. Mr. Meisner agreed that the parkway was a proposed solution to a State-created problem. He cited the problems created by the 6t' and 7th avenues expansion, saying that the project had not MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 13, 2000 Page 3 Work Session