Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 9:23 AM <br />To: GIOELLO Nick R <dick.R.Gioe3iocci.euene,or.us> <br />Cc: Susan Hoffman <short,-amesueC?yahoo,co> <br />Subject: <br />Hi Nick, <br />I'm temporarily filling in for Susan Hoffman as conduit for questions from the Capital Hill PUD Response Committee to <br />City staff. <br />The following questions are from Brent Lorscheider. They are clarifying questions for Public Works staff regarding a <br />previous question, quoted here below: <br />1. Since they share the same travel lane, will the increase in vehicle, pedestrian and other non-motorized users, <br />generated from the PUD, present more conflict and risk on Capital Drive and Spring Blvd, versus scenarios where <br />pedestrians and others are separated, e..g., by having a sidewalk to use? (Paul asked this question) <br />Yes. This applies to all local streets in the City with and without sidewalks. An increase in vehicles inherently creates <br />more opportunity for conflict with all users. Purposefully, that is the intent and purpose of the queuing street standard. <br />The increased points of conflicts requires motorized users to slow down and acknowledge other users with increased <br />frequency. Queuing streets work better with an increase in traffic.&#8203; <br />Brent's followup questions are: <br />1A. Which part of the Eugene Code speaks to the "the queuing street standard", and is there evidence that creating <br />more conflict between pedestrians, cyclist, and motorist on a subject street is "better" <br />meaning, presumably, safer? <br />1B. What about sections of the access street where queuing is not typically encountered, how does creating more <br />conflict in those sections, between pedestrians, cyclist, and motorist, make the street "better" ? <br />Would you kindly forward these to whomever in Public Work is working in this PUD evaluation? <br />Thanks, <br />Jan Wostmann <br />Laurel Hill Valley Citizens <br />3 <br />