New Search
Record Of Decision <br />Transportation -Public Parking <br />The proposed project may increase the demand for parking in the vicinity of the new courthouse. Under <br />Alternative 1, parking in the area is sufficient to meet the minimum demand (including parking required <br />by courthouse employees) but is not sufficient to meet the entire demand associated with the courthouse <br />project (such as visitor parking). The demand for parking by courthouse employees and visitors maybe <br />satisfied by existing or planned future public parking facilities. Selecting this alternative may result in a <br />temporary moderate shortage of parking.l <br />The Alternative 2 site currently has minimal public parking available in the immediate vicinity. The <br />demand for parking by courthouse employees and visitors maybe satisfied by existing or planned future <br />public parking facilities. Selecting this alternative may result in a temporary moderate shortage of <br />p~'~g• <br />Public transportation and pedestrian/bicycle amenities would not be significantly affected by selection of <br />either of the alternatives. <br />Public Services and Utilities <br />Although relocation of utilities ,may be necessary under either of the action alternatives, impacts on <br />utility services would not be significant. Both Eugene and Springfield have adequate police, fire, and <br />emergency medical service coverage. No significant impacts on public services or utilities are <br />anticipated to result from either of these alternatives. <br />Safety and Security <br />The proposed courthouse would incorporate current safety design standards. These measures would <br />improve the safety and security of all users within the federal courthouse. <br />Persons being detained during their trial are temporarily housed in the Lane County jail. The <br />Springfield alternative site is located farther from that facility than the Eugene alternative site. <br />Detainees housed at that facility would be transported a greater distance if the Springfield alternative is <br />selected. This additional distance would not result in a significant impact on public safety, however, the <br />extended exposure and risk for the U.S. Marshals Service who transport the detainees is significantly <br />increased. <br />Agency comment letters and responses: <br />The GSA published the final EIS on this project in December 2000. Comments about the final EIS, <br />which were received by GSA and GSA's responses to those comments, are contained in Attachment C. <br />'The Summary of Impacts sections of the draft and final EIS erroneously included a statement that the shortage of public <br />parking at the Riverfront site would be significant. The text of the document and the transportation technical appendix <br />correctly described the shortage of public pazking as moderate. Both the draft and final EIS documents correctly concluded <br />that the suggested transportation demand management program would mitigate the shortage of public pazking. <br />'' New Federal Courthouse Page 7 of 8 March 2001 <br />