Item B: River Avenue Improvements

Home Browse Search

Mr. Hill did not favor waiting for ODOT. He observed that the message was that ODOT might decide to do something, they did not know when it would be done, and they could change their minds. He stressed that a pavement overlay on River Avenue would be a "big mistake," and that it would not solve storm water issues. He questioned the wisdom of spending good money on something that would "go away" quickly. He also wished to point out that should the project be postponed, costs would continue to go up exponentially. He urged the group to get a plan together and "do it" and not to wait for ODOT. Ms. Damron agreed that the group should not wait indefinitely. She wished to take the ODOT word that more would be known within a year. She suggested that the group put a sunset date of 12 months on the waiting period and in that time it should lobby to get some kind of decision. Regarding the property owners' proposal, Ms. Damron opposed a reduction in landscaping. She wanted the landscaping to be beautiful. She also opined that if the road was only an on.ramp at the east end, it did not need to consist of three lanes. In response to concerns expressed about speed, she suggested that a two. lane road with potholes did much to reduce speed. She felt that cleaning up the road could potentially increase driving speeds to 50 miles per hour. Mr. Austin recalled that the City Council had directed the stakeholders group to make a proposal, not to present them with options. Mr. Schoening affirmed this. Mr. Howard underscored that a common theme of discussion was an unwillingness to take an expensive action before knowing ODOrs plans for Beltline Highway. He suggested forwarding Ms. Damron's second option, which mainly sought to repair River Avenue with a pavement overlay, as the group's preferred alternative and then submitting the propelty owners' proposal as a "fall.back." Ms. Vaughn wondered ifthe group could take a closer look at proposals and finesse them. She felt once the group had a better vision of what the project would look like, the group could strategize. She commented that she felt a little rushed. Mr. Hoobyar asked that a placeholder be put on Mr. Howard's suggestion. Mr. Samer thought the property owners' proposal could, with a little tweaking, be a good plan. He suggested that the group take a couple of "ancillary votes" on details such as landscaping and finish putting the proposal together. Continuing, Mr. Samer said he had made a point of coming to River Avenue on his bicycle more frequently and had observed pedestrians and bicyclists every time. He also had been talking with homeowners in his neighborhood, who had experienced a similar road improvement, and everyone he spoke to had opined that the River Avenue stakeholders just had to <<bite the bullet and do it." Mr. Hill reiterated his concerns regarding increased costs. He underscored that construction costs were increasing by 15 to 30 percent with every year. He opined that with the money the River Avenue road project would cost in five years a freeway could be built today. He did not favor relying on ODOT for MINUTE8--River A venue Stakeholder Group- Public Works Department October 5,2005 Page 6