Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
River Street ad hoc committee advances concept, asks RFP to prioritize staying within 58‑foot corridor; bike‑lane safety and raised intersections remain debated
Summary
The committee voted to recommend advancing the current River Street concept and directed staff to make maintaining a 58‑foot corridor a primary RFP objective where practical. Members pressed engineers for cost and safety analysis of raised intersections and protected bike‑lane options before the 30% design phase.
The River Street ad hoc committee voted to recommend that city council advance the current design concept and directed staff to make preserving the existing 58‑foot corridor a primary objective of the upcoming request for proposals (RFP), while acknowledging that exact limits cannot be guaranteed until field surveys and design stages proceed.
A committee member moved that the group recommend the city proceed to develop the existing design concept; another member seconded the motion and the committee approved it by voice. Committee discussion immediately turned to how firm a commitment the RFP could make about corridor width. Staff and consultants explained that a typical section is being used for concept design at under 10% completion and that exact yard impacts can only be determined after a formal survey and the 30% design phase.
On safety and geometry, committee members debated bike‑lane layout and intersection treatments. One long‑standing committee member concerned with bicycle safety said, "I think it's important for us to consider a safer design than a curb that drops off into the roadway," and urged investigation of vertically separated or traffic‑separated bike lanes and raised intersections to calm traffic. Consultants noted raised intersections can increase upfront cost and footprint but may reduce the need to encroach into private yards at problematic corners; the group asked consultants to provide a short‑term and long‑term cost comparison and any safety evidence available.
The committee also asked staff to include the tree plan and tree‑protection priorities in the RFP. Staff clarified scheduling: a survey is expected to take about one month once a consultant is on board; RFP procurement and contracting typically require additional weeks, and the committee set a tentative tree‑focused meeting for Aug. 18 and discussed potential council consideration in early September.
Formal actions recorded in the meeting included advancing the concept and adopting RFP language to make maintaining a 58‑foot section a primary objective where practical; no roll‑call tally was recorded in the transcript and staff said final geometric limits depend on later survey results.
Next steps: consultants will return with cost comparisons and safety references for raised intersections; staff will draft and post the RFP with the agreed primary objectives and return revised materials to the committee for review.
