Agenda Packet 2-19-19 Work Session

Home Browse Search

MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 41 • If it would cut down on traffic on Coburg Rd. I'm all for it. How do you get people to use it though? • There is enough congestion on Coburg Road. Please don't destroy it by putting EmX on that corridor. EmX in West Eugene: We spent over a hundred million dollars to replace existing bus service. That was a huge mistake. • Do not touch Coburg Road • Traffic altering concerns should be considered, especially along already congested areas such as River Road and Coburg Road • Traffic is a pain already. • You have selected extremely busy routs that have no alternatives for vehicles to go. You are only going to increase the congestion that is already on those avenues. • Concerned about reducing MLK to two lanes of through auto traffic. The stretch between Centennial Loop and Marche Chase regularly handles a heavy volume of auto traffic on its current four lane footprint. Additionally, the need for business access along that stretch is minimal so it would essentially condense two lanes of busy traffic into one to allow for a dedicated bus lane. Likely not the best use of road real estate. • Curious that your evaluation criteria don’t include anything about impacts to existing traffic and the increased greenhouse gas emissions that would inevitably ensue. Why is that? Seems to me that would be pretty important to the tens of thousands of motorists in this town, not to mention the disadvantaged populations most likely to be affected by reduced air quality. Don't forget that your duty as a public entity is to do the best for the most, not the worst for most. • One specific problem I'll use as an example is the number of additional stoplights in both Hwy 99 options (I'm sure that the no-build option is just window dressing and not under serious consideration because planners). Eleven ""enhanced crossings"" means that a typical trip between downtown and the Barger area will take at least twice as long. That's a lot of idling, and the amount of potential emissions caused by that is staggering. It's also completely contrary to the City of Eugene's Climate Recovery Ordinance. Keep that in mind- each and every additional stop light -no matter how noble the purpose- has a significant environmental cost over existing crossing facility. • You and I both know that your data on potential transit ridership increases is spurious at best and using it to justify all those extra red lights is, quite frankly, patronizing. Any potential ridership increases can be accommodated with existing transit infrastructure and doesn't need to be built on the backs of motorists (and their wallets). Looking toward the future, it's likely that ride-sharing and self-driving cars will eat into transit market share. What would be better (and cheaper) for our community in the long run- enhancing our transportation corridors to improve traffic flows (and reducing emissions) for everyone, or building transit burdens that LTD currently can't afford to operate? • I get it- if you're a hammer, every problem looks like a nail, and if you're a transit district, every problem looks like an opportunity to build a bus lover's utopia. There's a pretty significant lack of perspective here; there's no better evidence of this than my opening comment about the evaluation criteria. Either it was an oversight, or it was deliberate- both are inexcusable when we're talking about the potential to irreparably harm our community for decades to come. To get perspective, I recommend one small thing: hold a public vote. If Lane County stakeholders agree with you, then you've earned a bigger green light than any amount of MovingAhead February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1