My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packet 7-15-19 Work Session
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Public Meetings
>
City Council
>
2019
>
07-15-19
>
Agenda Packet 7-15-19 Work Session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/5/2019 4:50:41 PM
Creation date
7/5/2019 4:41:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City_Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Packet
City_Council_Meeting_Type
Work Session
City_Council_Meeting_Date
7/15/2019
City_Council_Effective_Date
7/15/2019
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
212
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MovingAhead Spring 2019 Outreach Summary 39 <br />Appendix C: All Open House <br />Comments <br />Comments have not been edited for spelling, grammar, etc., as a good-faith indicator that their content <br />has not been altered. <br />Enhanced Corridor <br />Concerns <br />Cost <br />Too Much <br /> With this option the capital costs are too high and it removes too much street parking. <br /> While this increases safety, the (probably overestimated) ridership increase costs neatly $400 <br />per rider. <br /> Transit time improvement is moderate, but estimated ridership seems to blunt that. What <br />happens to the Coburg route (transit options, transit time) if ridership isn't met? I prefer to use <br />my bike as often as possible (mainly in the summer) and Coburg needs bike improvements <br />(safety!), and this plan has moderate improvements, but I'm afraid it wouldn't be enough. <br />Development impacts look fine, and minimizing relocations is a good goal, but in order to meet <br />long-term city needs is key. Sure, this plan has a small short-term impact, but at what long-term <br />cost? Seems to me that while this plan costs less in the short-term, it could very well cost a lot <br />more in the long-term. <br /> Too Expensive, interrupts personal vehicle traffic <br /> Too expensive <br /> Seems like the cost is high relative to the benefit. Spend 148M to save .1M/year in operating <br />costs, with minimal improvements for transit users and vehicles? <br /> High cost, low benefit. <br /> Capital Cost per trip is nuts. We could give away 7.4 million $20 uber vouchers for the same <br />cost. Thats about 20 years worth of ridership. <br />Not Enough <br /> We need ridership to increase more than this would support. <br /> We need major restructuring of our transit system to focus on increasing walking, bicycling, and <br />mass transit, and reducing car and truck use, and we need to improve conditions for trees and <br />plants and diminish the role of pavement. We also need to diminish lighting and focus it so it's <br />only on and used where and when needed. <br /> River Road wouldn't be getting as much investment as it should. <br /> RIver Road needs better transit and EMX, this doesn't cover that. Doesn't invest enough in long- <br />term solutions. <br /> Not enough <br /> Not enough investment to help our community <br />July 15, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item1
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.