Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council presses state, staff on Olive Boulevard safety, crosswalks and service road options
Summary
Council members flagged pedestrian access and speeding on Olive Boulevard, discussed metered crosswalks on state‑owned segments, easement vs. purchase for a rear service road behind 8200–8400 blocks, and suggested traffic studies and possible Special Improvement District funding as ways to improve walkability and reduce illegal driving maneuvers.
Multiple council members raised safety and accessibility problems along Olive Boulevard during a wide-ranging discussion of the Olive Corridor. Council Member Briner described a situation where a blind man exiting a bus could not reach a nearby store without an indirect route, calling that a missed opportunity for walkability and direct access.
Speakers noted fast speeds on Olive and frequent conflicts caused when small storefronts have front‑in parking and vehicles back into a high‑speed thoroughfare. Council Member Smotherson and others suggested stronger collaboration with the state for crosswalks on state‑maintained sections and recommended traffic studies to document volumes and support requests for controlled crossings. Council members stressed that passive painted crosswalks are unlikely to succeed on segments where motorists do not reliably stop and that signalized or raised crossings may be needed.
Discussion turned to a possible service road behind the 8200–8400 blocks to connect parking lots and reduce illegal east/west lane maneuvers. Council members debated whether creating such a road would require purchasing private land, negotiating easements, or extending an existing service road near Cricsdale; a former traffic commission member recalled a prior recommendation for an extension that would not have required property purchases. As an alternative funding approach, a council member suggested a Special Improvement District (SID) for affected businesses so property owners could decide whether to fund the road directly.
No binding decision was made. Staff was asked to follow up with traffic commission records, to explore easement and funding options, and to seek state input on crosswalk designs for state roads.
