New Search
Stewart Road Closure <br />May 10, 1999 <br />Page 6 <br />_ there have been no complaints filed, and because the increase in trip time is relatively <br />small, the loss of access is not significant. <br />The appellants argued that other e~/idence had suggested that the number of <br />vehicles was greater than the City calculated in the administrative order, and that the City <br />had failed to consider the environmental consequences of the increased trip time. <br />The confusion concerning the number of vehicles using Stewart Road seems to be <br />caused by the City's distinction between the total number of vehicles traveling along <br />Stewart Road and the number of vehicles whose trips originate along Stewart Road. The <br />City understood the difference between the numbers, and considered both. <br />With this reconciliation, the only question in dispute is whether the increased <br />travel time 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 was 2.56 hours per day. Whether this is significant seems to depend largely on <br />one's perspective. Measured against the total number of vehicle hour traveled every day <br />in Eugene, the number is insignificant, and that is the perspective that the City took. <br />While the increased travel time might be more significant for others, the City's <br />conclusion is not illogical and thus does not provide appropriate grounds for reversal. <br />In the same way, the environmental consequences can be considered insignificant, <br />when they are measured against the overall impact of vehicular traffic in the city. The <br />language of section 5.055 does not indicate what standard is to be used to measure these <br />consequences. The standard the City used -measuring against the city-wide impact - is <br />not wrong and therefore must be sustained even if a different decision maker might have <br />used a different standard. <br />Appellants objected to the City's use of the fact that there were no complaints <br />about the closure from pass-through drivers as evidence that these drivers were not <br />significantly dissatisfied with the closure. Appellants are correct that very little should be <br />made about the lack of complaints, since there is no easy way to register such complaints. <br />Appellants are also correct in pointing out that many motorists must have valued Stewart <br />Road as a shortcut to something, since so many used it despite its deteriorated condition. <br />It is possible to speculate endlessly about the attitude of these pass-through drivers, since <br />they are not being heard from. It is not obviously incorrect to assume that, since there are <br />some means available to voice unsolicited complaints, the absence of such complaints <br />means that the depth of complaint about the closure from pass-through drivers is <br />insignificant. <br />The City also considered the impact of the closure on intersection capacity. The <br />City determined that the increased traffic on West 11`h would be insignificant; in that it <br />would have 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 deterioration of Stewart Road. <br />Although it is mentioned elsewhere in slightly different ways, the City's <br />conclusion that closing the road will slow deterioration of the road apparently represents <br />a primary rationale for closure. In its earlier decision, which was effectively made a part <br />