Item B: River Avenue Improvements

Home Browse Search

federal courthouse transportation improvements. He did not, however, know how cities competed for gasoline tax dollars. Mr. Henry underscored that agreements needed to be reached on the project in order to get the money. Mr. Hoobyar called for a five-minute break at 8:25 p.m. 5. What's "On" and "OW' the Table for Road Improvements to River Avenue Mr. Schoening stated that the current scope of the project lay from the River Road intersection to the Beltline Road onramps and expansion of the project beyond those parameters was "off" the table. He noted that a plethora of feedback indicating support for expansion of the project would cause staff to submit it to the City Council in the six-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). He said it could be possible to reduce the scope, though. Mr. Schoening said, in terms of design life, adherence to urban standards required a 20-year life which meant it would be an engineered road built to last 20 years with routine maintenance. This indicated that the concept of applying a maintenance overlay to the road was "off' the table. He pointed out that the City of Eugene contained 450 miles of streets and did not have enough money to maintain them in its maintenance fund. He stated that the City had 50 miles of unimproved roads on which the only mainte- nance provided was pothole patching. Mr. Schoening indicated that the TPR was unequivocal regarding the requirement to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists. He said the mode of accommodation could be modified somewhat, such as choosing whether to place sidewalks on one side of the street or both sides. Mr. Schoening listed some of the other elements of the project that were open to discussion, such as whether or not to include a center turn lane, how much street parking there should be and whether there should be any parking there, how drainage would be handled, and landscaping choices. Mr. Schoening stated that how the project was paid for was immutable as the City Council had developed its assessment policy and would not change it. He noted some concern expressed about whether Delta Sand & Gravel & Construction Company would be assessed. When in fact, Division Avenue improve~ ment project occurs Delta would be an assessable property. Mr. Howard did not think the City Council had charged staff with building the road to urban design standards. He believed that the council wished for a scaled down project and would perhaps be satisfied with a maintenance overlay. Mr. Schoening responded that it was implicit in the categorization of the road improvement as a modernization project that it would not be merely a maintenance project. He stated that there had never been a discussion at the council level that indicated that maintenance dollars should be spent on an unimproved road. Mr. Howard related that his sense taken from the community meetings was that the "vast majority" of people wanted to wait for ODOT to redesign the intersection before undertaking action on River Avenue. He suggested that, given Mr. Schoening's position as a City Engineer, he should go to the City Council and pass along this sentiment.. He felt the group was being misled into thinking that it could influence the MINUTES-River A venue Stakeholder Group - Public Works Department August 24, 2005 Page 8