Laserfiche WebLink
MovingAhead Spring 2019 Outreach Summary 55 <br /> Improving the corridor to LCC is a key component to the community. Allowing better access to <br />education is important. <br /> Improves commutation, but does little to offer real alternatives to growing congestion in <br />commercial corridors. Does not anticipate growth likely to occur in the Highway the corridor. <br /> Ignores residents in core, especially elderly and young job-seekers. <br /> I don't want the EmX on River Road. <br /> I don't support EmX going up River Road. I do support non-EmX improvements to the bus service <br />on Coburg Rd, and Hwy 99. <br /> I do not think this package would be approved by the voters as there is too high of an annual <br />operating costs and no improvements on 30th. <br /> EmX is not necessary on River Road. <br /> Eliminates key connections to South Eugene and Lane Community college which are corridors <br />where it would help to reduce commute times and connectivity. <br /> Don't like that this package focuses on the north Eugene exclusively? Seems like it assumes <br />growth and density have to happen on the north. The south should share in equal distribution of <br />density increases. <br /> Coburg Road needs EmX <br /> Coburg Rd should not be included in any of these plans as they all increase auto congestion. The <br />only needed work for the Coburg Rd corridor is to force LTD to purchase land for pull outs, so all <br />buses get completely off the road when stopped and don’t interfere with traffic. <br /> Because i do not like this option either. I want only enhanced option. <br /> Again, operating and capital cost increases, not great biking and walking safety. Also, not sure <br />that EmX provides that much advantage. <br /> Again we need to enhance a number of areas. Our current system is keeping pace with the <br />growth of our community. <br /> A significant jump in investment, but ties without vehicle transit time to the enhanced corridor <br />only option. <br /> 30-th/LCC would not serve many people. An increased corridor option would be good for that <br />corridor <br /> Too much impact on trees. Find a way to mitigate that. <br />Support <br /> Works well to have EMX for River Road and enhancements on other routes. Not as many <br />operating and capital costs and development impacts. Would need to have further emx and <br />enhancements added in the future. <br /> With significant improvements all across the board from Package A with the exception of <br />investment in corridors with higher levels of disadvantaged population this package looks like a <br />good compromise. But is it worth the $62M increase for adding coburg and mlk? <br /> Well supported by the public. Does well with top priorities. <br /> This would essentially be a win win for everyone without spending too much. <br /> This seems to provide a great middle-ground option, requiring all parties to make concessions <br />and still expanding access to critical services for underserved communities. I love the enhanced <br />July 15, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item1