Item B: I-5/Franklin Update - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE SUMMARY: 1-5 WILLAMETTE RIVER CROSSING / GLENWOOD FACILITY PLAN PHASE II TABLE 4. OPEN HOUSE #3 (DECEMBER 8, 2005 - EUGENE PUBLIC LIBRARY) Should the study go forward? . Yes o Yes, but. . . No, unless. . . . No Number of Responses 21 6 8 19 OPEN HOUSE SUMMARY-012406.DOC Most common responses Category 1 (2); Category 2 (2); Category 3 (1); Diamond on north side of river (1); Category 4 (6). Should be studied as part of new 1-5 bridge (2); address all concerns (1); Use new bridge to improve intersections and interchanges (2); study traffic reduction on 30th (1); help vitality/economics of both cities (4); creates an entrance (2); need roads to handle increased population and demand (4); focus on giving other towns access to the metro area (1); mitigating noise (1); concern for environment/river/park (2); keep full interchange at Franklin Blvd.loff ramp (2); will help to redevelop Glenwood (1); would alleviate congestion (1); need to start planning despite lack of money (2); would improve access to downtowns (2); reduce pressure at Beltline entrance (1); interest in aesthetics (1); start obtaining right of way for light rail to Vancouver, BC (1); move Franklin further from the river (1); Is there a demand for this? (1); easy access to UO (2). Category 2 (1); Category 4 (1); consider a split clover with East side having a connection close to Glenwood exit (1); create a diamond at Glenwood and make north bound ramp to Hwy. 99 a two way local access (1). Full interchange at Franklin seems like overkill (1); perhaps left lane exit/entrance ramps (1); concerned about sound mitigation (1); preserve local connection from Laurel Valley to Franklin (1); improve traffic merge with Glenwood interchange (1); take funds from WEP (1); needs to be combined with better streets in Glenwood (1); consider local connections to downtown Eugene (1); consider a bridge to Astes Street on north side of Willamette (1). Category 4 (4). Is it needed? (1); noise reduction/mitigation (1); retain local access (1); does the cost outweigh the benefit? (1); need a traffic impact study on.the Fairmount Neighborhood (1); concern parks/river/environment (6); don't need an expensive gateway (1); money better spent on Beltline congestion (1); need to shift to mass transit/alternative transportation options (1), What are the opportunity costs for these options? (1); should be a high priority part of the picture for further study (1); cost unreasonable for Categories 1-3 (3); consider the visual impacts (1); not needed until another hospital is sited in the Glenwood area (1); unsure, but inclined to support Category 4 with improved signage (1); no additional bridges are built (1); pedestrian and bike traffic should be planned for (1). Category 4 (1). Prefer no build, or Category 4 if required (5); concern for noise pollution in local neighborhoods (4); concern for entrances/exits from Laurel Hill to Franklin (2); concerned about the impact to old, established neighborhoods (3); better signage (4); concern for environment/park/river (9); currently adequate access from North and South (4); access is better than most cities (1); aesthetic concerns (1); no real need for this (7); additional interstate traffic will threaten nodal potential along BRT corridor (1); poor cost/benefit ratio (7); this would encourage local traffic on a congested 1-5 corridor (1); this would discourage public transportation (1); only good would be if a hospital were built in Glenwood (1); only advantage is to UO's arena, which I oppose, and Springfield downtown, however, that is growing north so this wouldn't help (1); Categories 1-3 cause more problems than they solve (2); .. . ?