problems caused by the additional new residents and construction traffic of the proposed <br />CHPUD? <br />This is pretty much the same question as #15 (already discussed). Deterioration of the road due to <br />construction activity. <br />18.(39:03) Is the City studying or planning to improve the access roads listed in #17 to <br />address traffic safety (vehicles, pedestrians, school children, bikes)? <br />Eric - No. <br />Faris - Are you studying these roads – the roads that get you away from the neighborhood - are <br />you planning to include anything about that in your review of traffic, road safety, emergency <br />access? <br />Eric – No. There are no plans in the TSP (Transportation Service Plan) and CIP (Capital <br />Improvement Plan) to address traffic safety in these areas. <br />Faris - So you don’t think it is the Planning Department’s responsibility to make sure that we have <br />safe and adequate access? <br />Eric - I can’t speak for the Planning Department. <br />Nick- He’s with Public Works. <br />Massoud - Traffic Engineers are pretty particular about the safety of streets and not compromising <br />or worsening conditions and (they) will chime in at some point. <br />Faris - So this question goes back to Nick and the Planning Department. Is the City or the <br />Planning Department making an assessment that all access roads provide safe and adequate <br />access to the PUD? <br />Nick - We’ll rely on our engineering “folks” to tell us whether it is safe or not. <br />Faris - The access roads… <br />Eric - No. There are no plans in the TSP/CIP. These are adopted plans that we (use) to identify <br />areas of the city that need improvement from a publically funded source <br />(41:24) Paul - That doesn’t speak to the point. That doesn’t cover whether or not you approve a <br />PUD, because those plans didn’t know about the PUD. You’re reversing the situation. The <br />question is not “Does the city have in place plans to improve that road (i.e., any access road).” <br />The question is “Is that road (i.e., any access road) safe and adequate for the proposed PUD? If <br />that road is not safe and adequate, it’s your responsibility to identify that and then the PUD <br />wouldn’t be approved because it wouldn’t meet (the requirements) in paragraph sub (5). <br />Eric - Right and then… I wasn’t done yet because our TSP/CIP actually do look at zonings and <br />vacant lands along the corridor and do consider maximum density when they’re evaluating the <br />access roads. <br />Faris - The access roads? <br />Eric - Yes. We look at all of the corridors. <br />Paul - Regarding sub (5)(b), which is bicycle, pedestrian & alternative mobility access offsite, <br />what’s the distance/where’s the limit to what you’re going to study? <br />Eric - I can’t speak to that right now. <br />Paul - Can you follow up? <br />Faris - That’s a real key question for us. <br />CW - These roads are major thoroughfares for U of O students, bicyclists, pedestrians, running <br />clubs... <br />Faris - And school children would be generated by this project and would need safe access all the <br />way to their schools. <br />Nick - So you’re talking about a dedicated bike/pedestrian path? <br />Paul - No. I’m just talking about sub(5) sub(b) that says you must have safe and adequate access. <br />(43:15) Paul - Can you give us a professional opinion about whether “mixed traffic” increases risk <br />or not? That is…pedestrians and vehicles sharing the same “travel way” – not the same right of <br />way – does that increase risk? <br /> <br />