Laserfiche WebLink
<br />those who believe that the warning afforded by train horns outweighs the disturbance <br />caused by the loud sound. <br />'±¤¤­§®´²¤ ¦ ² ¤¬¨²²¨®­² <br /> wed the quiet zone <br />proposal and found that it would have little to no effect on GHG emissions from idling motor <br />vehicles. Several of the safety measures could create some minor out-of-direction travel <br />resulting in a slight increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The project does not affect any <br />existing transit routes. The project improves safety for people who bike and walk, and it <br />does not preclude any alternative mode projects or other projects in the new transportation <br />system plan. <br /> <br />&´­£¨­¦ /¯³¨®­² <br />This area of analysis focuses primarily on economic issues. However, tax policies and other funding <br />impacts can have social equity consequences as well. <br />4 · ¯®«¨¢¸ <br /> This factor recognizes that policies may affect how tax burdens are distributed, <br />what levels of taxation are acceptable, and what the priorities are for existing and new <br />funding streams. An equity concern that came up during the public comment period was <br />pay to <br />prosperity, we heard that an investment in a quiet zone would stimulate investments in <br /> <br />development and affordable housing. <br />4§¤ ¢®²³ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®©¤¢³ <br /> The current estimated cost of fully implementing the railroad quiet <br />zone project is $6.8 million to $7.3 million. This significant investment in community <br />infrastructure requires a well-developed funding plan and makes it unlikely that a single <br />source of revenue can be tapped for the full cost. <br />#®²³ȃ¢´³³¨­¦ ¬¤ ²´±¤² <br /> As noted above, the cost of the project is seen as substantial by <br />many residents, including members of the quiet zone advisory panel. The panel weighed a <br />number of factors, including cost, when considering options for safety improvements. The <br />-cutting measures (such as a median rather <br />than quad gates at the Van Buren crossing, medians on Lincoln and Lawrence Street, and an <br /> <br />incremental approach to installing pedestrian gates at various crossings). <br />/¯³¨®­² ¥®± ¥´­£¨­¦ ³§¤ ¯±®©¤¢³ <br /> Staff identified three general options for funding the <br />project: use existing revenues; find new sources of revenue; or use a combination of new <br />and existing revenues. Citizen advisory panel members and the majority of comments <br />received from residents favored the combination approach. Existing revenues could include <br />funds (limited to work in the right of way), and/or funding earmarked for projects that <br />benefit people who bike and walk. New funds could come from a general obligation bond, <br />either as a stand-alone measure or coupled with another bond measure. The impacts of <br />these options on the triple bottom line are complex and might best be considered at a <br />higher level such as tax policy. <br />0±®©¤¢³ ¨¬¯«¤¬¤­³ ³¨®­ <br /> A strategy to reduce the short-term funding impact of the project <br />while preserving project momentum would be to implement the project in stages. If the <br />easterly portion of the project (Hilyard to Pearl streets) were constructed first, a significant <br />portion of the work could be done using urban renewal funds. This would allow more time <br />to develop funding options for the west end. However, there may be an equity issue with <br />quiet zone supporters who might feel left out, especially if the later phases of the project are <br /> <br />delayed. <br /> <br /> <br />3®¢¨ «  ­£ £¤¬®¦± ¯§¨¢  ­ «¸²¨² <br /> According to the Livability Lane Toolkit, in the neighborhoods <br />in the vicinity of the rail line between Jefferson and Chambers streets in (census tracts 32 and 18), <br /> 27 <br /> <br /> <br />