Laserfiche WebLink
MovingAhead Spring 2019 Outreach Summary 48 <br />of congestion. The very low improvements in transit times also will do nothing to convince <br />commuters with other options to use public transit more. <br /> While it is important to serve areas with low-income and minority populations these limitations <br />can further isolate and segregate these communities given their need for transit access. In other <br />words, these populations would not be able to live in other parts of the community without <br />sufficient transit access. <br /> While I would like the focus to be on the West side of Eugene, with Highway 99 and River Road <br />because I live on that side of town, this option doesn't do a good job of meeting the top <br />priorities of the community. Benefit is less proportionate for the overall population. <br /> Transit performance is poor. Bicycling and walking is poor. The return on investment is poor. <br />Why would River Road and Highway 99 be prioritized over Coburg and 30th Avenue? How many <br />people would be impacted by this plan, both positively and negatively? What are the short-term <br />benefits of this plan and how do they affect the long-term goals, both positively and negatively? <br /> Though it serves more disadvantaged people by having EmX on River Road, those who live along <br />Hwy 99 will not see much improvement in their transit time. <br /> This only meets the community goal of annual budget. It shows low ridership gains, minimal <br />bike/ped improvements. <br /> I consider the high rating (98%) for percentage of investment in corridors for the disadvantaged <br />as a moot point. After all, if I have $5 and give it all to a homeless man, he receives 100%. If I <br />have $20 and give him $10, then give another $10 to a friend who wants to buy a cheeseburger, <br />I only give the homeless man 50%. But what does it matter? His still receives something; in fact <br />more in the 2nd scenario. So, despite this package having the highest percentage given to <br />disadvantaged, that is a pointless number (unless, say, they only received a very low percentage; <br />say, under 10%). <br /> This coincidentally serves where I would need to travel very well, but I know plenty of people <br />who would benefit from the other corridors and this just doesn't serve enough spaces. I would <br />consider this less of an end goal and more of a highlighted priority for where to begin on <br />another package (so, start here as the first routes, before shifting attention to the others in <br />Packages B and C). <br /> There's a lot of light blue,-does not support criteria- on this chart. It looks like this is does not <br />improve TRAVEL TIME, does not do much for SAFETY, and is not supportive of businesses in the <br />area. Public approval? Not great, because 2/5 corridors are not being dealt with. in any helpful <br />way on top of the issues I mentioned previously. Why is this even a thing then? No way. <br /> There would be no improvements for pedestrians on Coburg Rd. That is a huge concern of mine. <br /> The slight gain in ridership and minimal reduction to congestive interactions is not worthy of the <br />investment <br /> Pls, tell me why River Road needs EmX,30th Ave/LCC and Coburg Road don't need to build? <br /> only two roads are covered <br /> Only Helps certain areas <br /> Only a subset of the population really benefits. Why do something that is not consistent with <br />the big picture plans and policies? <br /> Not general enough, though does address low-income support. <br /> No-Build on Coburg does not work. There has to be improvements to transit on that corridor <br /> Need to address all corridors. <br />July 15, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item1