Laserfiche WebLink
MovingAhead Spring 2019 Outreach Summary 56 <br />corridors idea for the other areas. I live in the South Eugene area and am satisfied with the bus <br />service out to LCC but I understand that many would prefer improvements. <br /> This plan looks fine, but leaving out 30th Ave seems like a big deal. It's better than the Enhanced <br />Corridor and Package A options. <br /> This package significantly improves transit times and supports a more economically diverse <br />section of the city population than Package A. River Road is poised for significant changes and <br />development over the next few years, and making it more quickly and easily connected to the <br />rest of Eugene will support its development while helping to mitigate a major influx of cars and <br />congestion in the area. <br /> This option provides more bells and whistles, and the devil is in the details. Do the bike <br />improvements on Coburg Road include a barrier lane? As a fearless old lady who uses a bike, <br />this corridor is not for the faint hearted. Only the most dedicated or desperate cyclists ride on <br />Coburg Road. Cars rule here. I'd like to see more than an enhanced corridor--EmX, and barrier <br />bike lanes please. This package has more to recommend it. <br /> This option does have a bit higher operating cost with the most effective ridership increase <br />other than EMX. Other than that, I feel this is the best option <br /> This one may go too far, but that is my only concern. <br /> This one looks a lot better. It might be my favorite. <br /> This does not single out only minority/ low income communities, avoiding any stigma that public <br />transport is only for those with limited means <br /> This again isn't as comprehensive as we need as a community. More comprehensive and easy <br />riding helps communities connect. Yet, some investment is better than none. Package B is better <br />than Package A <br /> The emx option is my favorite but need better policing and verfication of payments <br /> Seems to be strongest in providing access across the city with the most reasonable capital <br />investments. <br /> Seems to be offering a substantial increase in ridership <br /> Seems the most all around effective of the options. <br /> Seems like a good middle ground, but if you're going to make this happen why not just go all the <br />way? <br /> Reaches lower income folks on Hwy 99 and college students on MLK Blvd at Chase Gardens. <br /> Positive: Systemwide Annual Ridership Increase, Percent of Investment in Corridors with Higher <br />Level of Disadvantaged Population <br /> Less Ideal: New Bike/Ped Access and Safety Improvements <br /> Moderate ratings on most criteria. Not bad. <br /> looking better <br /> It sounds like it would work just fine for the areas included. <br /> It sounds helpful to the community <br /> It seems to have the most positive benefit to the whole community. <br /> It covers more of the city but doesn't show that the improvements will allow citizens to do away <br />with the car. <br /> Includes Coburg Rd. <br />July 15, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item1