Laserfiche WebLink
<br />River Avenue Transportation Outreach Comments <br /> <br /> OTHER <br /># Meeting Group Comments <br /> Date 2005 <br />162 June 23 PO As a taxoayer, waste of money and timeu(no extended process}. <br />163 June 23 PO Can't predict what ODOT will do. Not prudent to make decisions based on ODOT <br /> prediction. <br />164 June 23 PO Could project be delayed until ODOT makes a decision on ramo? <br />165 June 23 PO Council heard no support going out to broaden scope e.g. bicyclists no truckers. <br /> Bikers don't oav aas taxes. Prooertv owners foot the bill. <br />166 June 23 PO Curves on Avres Rd not safe <br />167 June 23 PO Heard from a couple bicyclists that it doesn't meet needs but they don't pay for <br /> improvements. <br />168 June 23 PO How are opinions weighed? Bike coalition opinion shouldn't outweigh property <br /> owners. <br />169 June 23 PO If BeltHne access closed current roadway design not applicable. Design costs <br /> should be reasonable. <br />170 June 23 PO If ODOT ramp closed, functional class could chanae even local street. <br />171 June 23 PO Need overlay and bike/oedestrian oath <br />172 June 23 PO OriQinal costs much lower. Take away trees, bike oath south, curb/outter, overlay <br />173 June 23 PO Problem with improvements beyond post office. Encourage more traffic and <br /> ODOT may close ramo. <br />174 June 23 PO Project will encouraoe more traffic. Deslon more than we need. <br />175 June 23 PO Saturday Ave. work session preferred over 3 evenina meetinos. <br />176 June 23 PO Told bv ODOT ramo would be closed. <br />177 June 23 PO What is the emeraencv of this oroiect? <br />178 June 23 PO Why is this project a priority when there is little public support? Seems to be a <br /> staff priority. <br />179 June 23 PO Would the increase in oil costs aive less of a cost at same total cost? <br />180 June 23 PO Please do not abandon this project. This would be my wish list: keep turn lane <br /> from Ross lane to River Road; eliminate vegetation/treeslfrufru?; keep street <br /> liohts; speed control; multi-use bike/oed oath/walkway; draina~e. <br />181 June 23 PO The issue was never about these questions but about importance of such an <br /> extensive improvement and its costs and changes caused by ODOT changes. <br /> Most important -- wait for ODOT. 1, improvement needed west end up to post <br /> office. <br />182 June 23 PO No center turn lane except at post office <br />183 JulY 7 SCCO Accelerate ODOT studv - talk with them. <br />184 July 7 SCCO Actual costs higher than presented by staff. Padd ed project costs passed on to <br /> orooertyowners. <br />185 July 7 SCCO Are there other fundina sources such as ADA, parks, etc? <br />186 July 7 SCCO Build combination bike/ped, surface water treatment, resurface don't do more until <br /> ODOT decision for studvinq Beltline. <br />187 Julv 7 SCCO Correct the roads and sewers but nothinQ else is needed! <br />188 July 7 SCCO Could the funds for this proiect be used for somethino more needy? <br />189 July 7 SCCO Delta Sand & Gravel company benefiting but not contributing, extend project so <br /> they will. <br />190 July 7 sceo First west 800' of project. most emohasls. Then truck traffic at end. <br />191 July 7 SCCO If County can do McKenzie View for $827,000 why does the City need to spend <br /> over $2 million for River Ave.? <br />192 July 7 seeo Need to talk to ODOT before oroceedina. Decision from ODOT. <br />193 July 7 SCCO People access Beltline from River Ave because River Road clogged ODOT project <br /> may chanoe traffic flow. <br /> <br />PO = Property Owner <br />SCCO = Santa Clara Community Organization <br />RRAR = River Road Area Residents <br />EBe = Eugene Bicycle Coalition <br /> <br />River Avenue Transportation Improvements <br />Summary of Outreach Comments <br />June/July 2005 p 7 of 9 <br />