Laserfiche WebLink
MovingAhead Spring 2019 Outreach Summary 47 <br />doesn't help the poor now does it help the rich. It only helps yourselves continue to leech off of <br />the American taxpayer. Get a real job! <br /> What community do you get input from? Only those who want to force bad public <br />transportation options on others, not those who end up footing the bill. <br /> We do not need another Em-X route unless it's earned through a county-wide public vote. As it <br />stands, not only do citizens not get to vote on these, they don't even get to vote for the people <br />making the decisions. The hundreds of Millions (with a capital M) that these projects would cost <br />are not worth the negative impacts to traffic. Increased commute times lead to increased <br />emissions, and disadvantaged populations would be hardest hit. <br /> Saving money is good. Jerry Brown's train idea failed in California. Mass transit will fail in <br />Eugene. <br /> Not necessary. <br /> No emx on river road. Very low ridership in this area. To many families with dual incomes and <br />busy kids. Public transportation doesn’t work well here <br /> No EMX on River Road. No more EMX anywhere! It's terrible! <br /> It is all mass transit, not what is needed. There should have been many highways built years ago. <br /> It involves more EMX , which should not be included in any option after the failure it has been in <br />West Eugene. <br /> I'm not sure any bussing option will replace cars for people who live near the end of these <br />routes. It simply takes too long to get to the city center by bus and even longer if not going to <br />the city center. For a working family with multiple kids in childcare or activities, the system <br />would never be used. Better to just improve roads and bike lanes. <br /> Don't like the way the transit district is run. No elected officals <br />Harms driving <br /> You doing nothing about the traffic situation and putting all the effort into buses and bicycles. <br />and making the auto drivers pay for it. <br /> Too Expensive, interrupts personal vehicle traffic <br /> This doesn't address how individual drivers/commuters will be impacted, but the reduced <br />parking definitely concerns me, as well as more businesses being impacted. <br />Performance against criteria <br /> Would prefer investment be made more widely to have best impact on increasing ridership and <br />improving bike/ped safety. <br /> Would be better to have EmX on Hwy 99 and Enhanced Corridor on River Road <br /> Will not help reach goals of tripling the number of people who walk, bike, and use transit. <br /> while this proposal seems to enhance ridership services to areas where the population base <br />served the fact bicycles are being given any preference in on a main arterial street is not in the <br />communities best interest. There are plenty of alternative streets that would be better hosts for <br />bicycles. <br /> While there is an obvious benefit to our transit system being made more accessible to low <br />income and underserved populations, a plan that primarily impacts these populations will not <br />achieve the goal of making public transit more desirable, and therefore more utilized, by the <br />general population of the city, doing little to keep cars off the roads and having nominal impacts <br />July 15, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item1