New Search
Stewart Road Closure <br /> May 10, 1999 <br /> Page 6 <br /> there ha e been no complaints filed, and because the increase in trip time is relatively <br /> small, t e loss of access is not significant. <br /> <br /> i <br /> he appellants argued that other evidence had suggested that the number of <br /> vehicles was greater than the City calculated in the administrative order, and that the City <br /> had fail d to consider the environmental consequences of the increased trip time. <br /> he confusion concerning the number of vehicles using Stewart Road seems to be <br /> caused y the City's distinction between the total number of vehicles traveling along <br /> Stewart oad and the number of vehicles whose trips originate along Stewart Road. The <br /> City un erstood the difference between the numbers, and considered both. <br /> ith this reconciliation, the only question in dispute is whether the increased <br /> travel ti e is significant. The City concluded that the increased travel time for non-local <br /> vehicles was nearly two hours a day, and that the increased travel time for local industrial <br /> trips wa 2.56 hours per day. Whether this is significant seems to depend largely on <br /> one's p rspective. Measured against the total number of vehicle hours~traveled every day <br /> in Euge e, the number is insignificant, and that is the perspective that the City took. <br /> While t e increased travel time might be more significant for others, the City's <br /> conclus on is not illogical and thus does not provide appropriate grounds for reversal. <br /> the same way, the environmental consequences can be considered insignificant, <br /> when th y are measured against the overall impact of vehicular traffic in the city. The <br /> languag of section 5.055 does not indicate what standard is to be used to measure these <br /> conseq ences. The standard the City used -measuring against the city-wide impact - is <br /> not wro g and therefore must be sustained even if a different decision maker might have <br /> used a ifferent standard. <br /> ppellants objected to the City's use of the fact that there were no complaints <br /> about t e closure from pass-through drivers as evidence that these drivers were not <br /> signific tly dissatisfied with the closure. Appellants are correct that very little should be <br /> made a out the lack of complaints, since there is no easy way to register such complaints. <br /> Appell is aze also correct in pointing out that many motorists must have valued Stewart <br /> Road a shortcut to something, since so many used it despite its deteriorated condition. <br /> It is po Bible to speculate endlessly about the attitude of these pass-through drivers, since <br /> they az not being heard from. It is not obviously incorrect to assume that, since there aze <br /> some ans available to voice unsolicited complaints, the absence of such complaints <br /> means t at the depth of complaint about the closure from pass-through drivers is <br /> insigni cant. <br /> he City also considered the impact of the closure on intersection capacity. The <br /> City de ermined that the increased traffic on West 11`h would be insignificant; in that it <br /> would ave little effect on the intersection's level of service. The City also concluded <br /> that the closure will not affect the Stewart Road intersections themselves, but will slow <br /> the det rioration of Stewart Road. <br /> lthough it is mentioned elsewhere in slightly different ways, the City's <br /> conclus'on that closing the road will slow deterioration of the road apparently represents <br /> a prim y rationale for closure. In its earlier decision, which was effectively made a part <br /> <br />