2007-07-02 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4 Mr. Owen said he knows the footprint of the interchange is a concern. He said they looked at other interchanges in the City and others that were mentioned in the state. He said they found that a lot of parkway interchanges in the state are actually larger than what is proposed here. He presented footprint comparisons with local and parkway interchanges around the state. Responding to a question from Dr. Brown, Mr. Owen said that C-1 and G-1 alternatives can be looked at equally, but C-1 has a few more things that make it more inviting. Dr. Brown said that G-1 alternative has a signal which would be easier to cross if you are on a bike or on foot. He said it is hard to imagine if there is no signal. Mr. Owen said that pedestrian accidents have been shown to be down in roundabouts if there is no signal, but he acknowledged that finding gives the Committee pause. He said it is important to provide a safe crossing. Dr. Brown said he agrees with the SELC about the need for more detailed models of some type. Otherwise he said he cannot see how the topography will change. Mr. Owen said they plan to develop models but it is premature at this stage. Dr. Brown asked that staff prepare a report on what to expect from a model. Mr. Owen said they can send what has been prepared for other projects. Ms. Hamilton asked if Council does not pick a recommended preferred alternative will models be developed for all models, and Mr. Helman said yes. Mr. Lynch said he appreciates the work and feels a lot of progress has been made. He said he thinks more attention needs to be paid to pedestrian connections. He said the point of the pedestrian access is to get it out of the intersection so there is no conflict with cars. He said he would like to see a little wider spance for pedestrian access. He said he would find it acceptable to spend $5 million for pedestrian access, and said that could come from First Cities funds, urban allocation, or grant funds. He said he leans more toward alternative C-1 with a roundabout. He said G-1 is similar to the interchange at Barracks Road and he does not really think of that as an entrance feature. He said he would support C-1 and if that does not work, G-1. Ms. Hamilton asked what the thinking was of the Committee as to why these two alternatives rose to the top. Mr. Lynch said they stay away from the Vietnam Memorial, are simpler in terms of traffic movement, and the overall amount of asphalt is not much more than the Park Street interchange. He said there is substantial green space within the footprint. He said they also preserve the Rescue Squad building. Dr. Brown asked if Council is comfortable with alternatives C-1 and G-1 and with the Planning Commission’s finding that the interchange is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Norris said he finds it an arbitrary endeavor, and asked for legal advice on how to proceed. Mr. Brown, said he has no words of wisdom and there is no guidance in the State Code. He emphasized there is no final design required for a finding of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that Council is approving the concept. Mr. Lynch said the Comprehensive Plan is clear on a commitment to increasing bike and pedestrian accessing and reducing automobiles. He asked the consultants to continue to enhance the pedestrian access. He said he would like to get a sense of