Item B: River Avenue Improvements

Home Browse Search

Ms. Rojas remarked that if one primary issue in the River Avenue project was safety, then the intersection should be of a higher importance given the level of public concern about it. She suggested that if work was to be done on the intersection it would be prudent to conduct the work simultaneously with the River A venue project. Ms. Rojas asked if there would be an opportunity to provide a minority report to the City Council, pending the decision-making process. Mr. Hoobyar replied that there would be such an opportunity. He clarified that the decision-making process had yet to be determined and could be anything from pure consenms to a majority/minority voting process. Ms. Damron commented that Councilor Andrea Ortiz had indicated she had concerns regarding the intersection. She thought the situation could be mitigated by providing two turn lanes from the high school side of the road (the west side). She averred the safety issue was supported by the crash data from the intersection. She was encouraged to hear Ms. Cahill state that some operational improvements were possible. She said just because the "very dangerous intersection" was a few feet outside of the boundaries of the proposed project, if safety was a driving issue the intersection should be included in the project even if it was on an operational level and not a roadbed constnlction level. Mr. Schoening responded that it was possible to do that operationally, but the concern lay in that should a capital improvement be desired for that intersection it would have to be brought before the City Council for approval. However, an operational change could be undertaken by statT. Ms. Cahill cited the blue bicycle lanes as an example of a significant change made since the crash data had been reviewed. Ms. Vaughn observed that a redesign of River Avenue could encourage people to come down that street rather than turning left to enter the Beltline Highway from River Road. Ms. Damron thought improved signage could alleviate some of the pressure on the intersection. Mr. Hoobyar asked Mr. Schoening to speak to the difference between the maintenance budget and the capital improvement budget, given that it was a somewhat confusing delineation. Mr. Schoening explained that the City had 500 miles of streets, of which 50 miles were still unimproved roadways. He stated that there was a backlog of $93 million in street preservation and maintenance projects on the 450 miles of improved roadways. He underscored that placing asphalt on an unimproved base such as the River Avenue roadway would not be money well-spent. He further clarified that it was not possible to unilaterally decide to change the funding source from capital improvement funding to maintenance funding as the capital improvement program was a process that began with prioritization and staff and council consideration and culminated in council approval. Ms. Damron was concerned about making improvements when the future of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) roadway, the Beltline Highway, was yet unknown. She felt the River Avenue project could be under-built, should the roadway become the primary onramp to Bcltline Highway. She did not think a lot of money should be spent on improvements beyond the edge of the Post Office property without foreknowledge of the intentions ofODOT. She added that city councilors sometimes made exceptions in city policies as an investment in goodwill. Mr. Meeker agreed that improvements were needed on the west end of the roadway. He would support further improvements if ODOT would provide information on its future intentions. MINUTES--River Avenue Stakeholder Group- Public Works Department August 30, 2005 Page 2