My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2008
>
CC Agenda - 11/10/08 Meeting
>
Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:27:14 PM
Creation date
11/7/2008 11:23:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
11/10/2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Councilor Solomon said she took the Web survey and thought it was fun. She asked which design emerged as the <br />public favorite. Ms. Dodson said 55 percent of first place votes went to the through-arch bridge, which also had 25 <br />percent of the last place votes. The deck arch bridge had 35 percent of first place votes and 70 percent of the <br />combined first and second place votes, and only three percent of the last place votes. <br /> <br />Councilor Poling expressed support for the through-arch as a first preference to the deck-arch, his second preference, <br />and asked about the difference in costs between the options. Mr. Dodd said that staff was still discussing the costs of <br />the options and he hoped to have that information available by August 5, 2008. He added that one of the most <br />affordable bridges appeared to be the deck-arch bridge and the most expensive the through-rch bridge. He reiterated <br />that those estimates were premature. <br /> <br />Councilor Poling asked which bridge had the least impact on the river and riverbank. Mr. Dodson said that they all <br />had the same pier locations and number of piers and were the same in that regard as to impact. The deck options had <br />an additional pier south of Franklin Boulevard between the road and the river. <br /> <br />Councilor Zelenka also liked the through-arch with the deck-arch a second choice. He raised the issue of storm <br />water, which was of importance to his constituents. He said the issue of drainage was important to them, and he <br />hoped ODOT addressed it. Mr. Dodson said that ODOT had storm water specialists and he would pass that <br />information on to them. He asked Councilor Zelenka if he could share any specifics about what problems he hoped <br />to solve. Councilor Zelenka had nothing specific to offer Mr. Dodson but thought there was a problem that ODOT <br />should address. Mr. Dodson said he would appreciate more specific guidance about any problems that existed. <br />Councilor Zelenka believed the project development team was working on the issue. Mr. Dodson said the engineering <br />details in regard to drainage were being worked out by ODOT’s consultant. Councilor Zelenka promised to get back <br />to Mr. Dodson with specifics. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman asked if the half-arch could be a whole-arch so it did not look so off-center and asymmetrical, and <br />asked if ODOT had considered replacing the two large arches with one larger arch, and placing the piers farther <br />apart. Mr. Dodson said that the only way to accomplish a single span would be through a suspension bridge. He <br />added that the higher the span, the higher the cost per square foot. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman also liked the through-arch because of the element of Franklin Boulevard and hoped something <br />could be done to beautify the view from Franklin Boulevard as well as from the river. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman asked how the design elements accommodated future new ramps. Mr. Dodson said ODOT did <br />not contemplate accommodating new ramps, but accommodating any type of interchange design for the Glenwood- <br />Franklin with a hole under Franklin Boulevard wide and high enough to accommodate up to seven extra lanes of <br />traffic. However, it was very unlikely that one would ever have seven lanes. He noted that the AIA study of the <br />Franklin Boulevard corridor did not contemplate seven lanes. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman wanted the bridge design to be adequate to accommodate the reconstruction of the existing ramps, <br />not new ramps. Mr. Dodson pointed out the findings called for reconstruction of the existing ramps. <br /> <br />Chris Henry of the Public Works Department clarified the scope of the project, which did not include ramps at <br />Franklin Boulevard. He said that ODOT’s reference to ramps was to reconstruction of existing ramps to allow it to <br />connect to a new elevation of I-5. <br /> <br />Councilor Pryor expressed appreciation for the work done by ODOT and recalled his earlier support for the deck- <br />arch bridge, although he thought it had safety issues. He thought the deck-arch had the same potential but believed <br />they could be mitigated. He liked the through-arch design as well and indicated it would be his first choice now. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 16, 2008 Page 12 <br /> Meeting <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.