Item B: River Avenue Improvements

Home Browse Search

cost at that point in time. He projected that a complete upgrade of the Beltline Road/Interstate 5 interchange, including the Gateway/Beltline intersection, would be "'well over $150 million." In response to a question from Mr. Spain, Mr. Boyart said ODOThad not settled on a design alternative, but the connectiotls to the Beltline Highway from River Road and from River Avenue were not good interchanges. Ms. Damron thanked Mr. Boyatt for coming. She observed that the "$64,000 question" was in regard to plans that 0001' had for the River AvenuelBeltline Road intersection and the intersection at River Road and when it was planned to be under construction. Mr. Boyatt replied that 0001' had not "set the table." He anticipated having a preferred alternative at the end of the planning process. He added that it was possible that 0001' would end up with a "no.build situation." However, he averred that the crash history and traffic analyses suggested that the project should be started today. Ms. Damron surmised that it would be a few years before the group could have the answers it wished for today. She asked ifhe thought 0001' would have a "yea or nay" on the project within three years. Mr. Boyatt responded that the "yea or nay" point in the project would happen at the concept/sketch level. After that, he added, the project could still be altered by the NEP A process as happened with the Gateway interchange. Mr. Hyman asked if it was appropriate for the City to be entering into a project before fully knowing what the 0001' Beltline Road project would encompass. Mr. Boyart explained that it was not his agency's position to opine on City projects. He underscored that the integrity of the River Avenue/Division Avenue local street system would be held harmless in an 0001' project. Mr. Hyman commented that he did not think River Avenue would continue to be a collector should the Beltline Road interchange at the east end be shut down. He averred that many cars utilized River Avenue as an access road to the Beltline Road. Mr. Spain asked for a sense of the time line should 0001' undertake a major improvement project on Beltline Road. Mr. Boyart speculated that such a project could be ready for construction in 10 to 15 years. Mr. Spain questioned, given that a change to the Beltline Road interchange was 10 to 15 years out, whether an overlay or reconstruction project would be more fiscally prudent. Ms. Cahill replied that the course of action that made the best financial sense was to rebuild the road. Mr. Henry added that given the traffic volumes, which were expected to continue to grow, the need for improvement remained. Mr. Spain remarked that he thought the River Avenue interchange was unlikely to be closed. Mr. Meeker opined that Lane County and the City of Eugene did not receive their fair share of the State gasoline tax. He wondered how the local jurisdictions could receive more money for road repairs. Mr. Boyart commented that he did not work in that arena. He stated, however, that the five ODOT regions received money according to a formula based on population and lane miles. Region 2 received 28 or 29 percent of the "pie" and the Portland area received 35 percent. He averred that the formula was intended to be a fair way to distribute the revenue. He noted that Oregon had done well with federal earmarking of funds doled in six~year authorization packages, with $20 million for the lnterstate 5/Beltline Road interchange and $9 million for the Interstate 5/Coburg interchange in addition to money for the new MINUTES-River A venue Stakeholder Group - Public Works Department August 24, 2005 Page 7