Laserfiche WebLink
MovingAhead Spring 2019 Outreach Summary 42 <br />Performance against criteria <br /> When compared to Package A the ridership difference and price difference make Package A <br />more attractive between the two. Dropping 5k estimated riders while saving 29 million in <br />estimated cost is well worth it. <br /> We need more people traveling on their feet and fewer in vehicles. <br /> want bike and pedestrian safety improvements <br /> transit system efficiency for user is not prioritized, so overall system will suffer <br /> This option continues to prioritize car travel and will not aid in encouraging alternate forms of <br />transportation. <br /> There is a lack of detail in the options. Hard for me to know how this really impacts me as the <br />individual. This doesn't feel like much of an enhancement. <br /> The price is right, but does not meet the needs of the disadvantaged population. <br /> the number of trees impacted is slightly concerning, as well as businesses. <br /> The emx option but they need to be better policed too many free riders <br /> Ridership levels jump when there are 15 or fewer minute intervals, and 10 or fewer minutes is <br />even better. I’m concerned with any plan that does not seem to prioritize transit service <br />intervals. <br /> Pretty graphics, unrealistic expectations. <br /> poor improvements to bike/ped safety, not enough ridership increase <br /> Only marginally addresses the goals. <br /> Only a small ridership increase and low safety rating. Basically equivalent to doing nothing. <br /> Only a small ridership increase <br /> Only 21% improvement in transit time <br /> not good for bikers and walkers <br /> not enough focus on bicycle/pedestrian safety <br /> Need to enhance the system so that it is better to get around town than driving a car. <br /> Need more safety and access. <br /> Moderate low cost system improvements across the entire community, improvements are <br />moderate across the board. Would prefer greater connectivity and safety improvements. <br /> minimal increase in ridership <br /> low rating for safety and access for people who walk and bike <br /> Low rating for safety <br /> Low public safety. Lack of establishment of pedestrian walkways leads to overall reduction of <br />space usage, decreasing marketability and as such, potential economic growth. <br /> It serves just 56% of the disadvantaged population. <br /> It meets the community goals of bike/ped improvements and annual costs, improved travel <br />speeds, but isn’t expected to result in higher ridership. <br /> It doesn't do much to improve travel time, ridership, or safety for peds and bikes. <br /> Increases traffic, has low impact on ridership and sustainability <br /> Inadequate <br /> I'm concerned with the property impacts, as well as the fact that the level of investment in <br />corridors for historically disadvantaged populations is low. <br />July 15, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item1