Laserfiche WebLink
MovingAhead Spring 2019 Outreach Summary 57 <br /> In general, it works for the community. The exception is the Coburg Road Corridor. Coburg Road <br />will be very expensive to build and operate. It will only add to congestion. Too many trees will <br />be removed along with too many business relocations. Also, parking impacts are a huge <br />negative. <br /> Impacts trees and properties less and still allows for enhanced corridors since it seems that Em- <br />X on River Road is a given. Don’t understand why Em-X on River Road is prioritized over Coburg <br />Road when there is way more traffic on Coburg Road. A decent bus service on that corridor with <br />all the shopping and cars seems a much wiser decision. <br /> If greater frequency on Coburg Road route, will work very well. <br /> I’m biased as this is the area I live in. I’d like to attend the YMCA & talks/presentations around <br />town that’re after dark, but often I won’t if I’m biking. I will NOT get on the River path to ride <br />due to safety (attacks) but really do NOT like riding over the Chambers bridge nor on River Rd <br />after dark (I don’t trust sharing the road with vehicles. Too many don’t pay attn!) <br /> I would like to include the 30th Street improvements, but I'm willing to wait for these. <br /> I think this makes the most sense! River Road needs EmX, and at least some investment is <br />necessary on Hwy 99, MLK, and Coburg Road. (I would like to see true EmX on Coburg Road, but <br />I think Enhanced Corridor options make the most sense in the near-term.) <br /> Also, as I mentioned before, this package rightly avoids investing in the Amazon Parkway/30th <br />corridor, which would actually make transit worse compared to sensible network reforms that <br />eliminate service on Amazon entirely. <br /> I think this is really good, and fair. TRAVEL TIME increases a decent amount, SAFETY looks nice, a <br />lot of increase in ridership, work on 4/5 of the corridors for improvement. <br /> I think this is a solid option if there are medium-level budgetary constraints, I prefer options that <br />address all corridors, but this would certainly be a welcome improvement, and a sign that this <br />community is continuing to place high value in making our spaces easily accessible. <br /> I think EC is appropriate for most corridors but that EmX on River rd matches well with the <br />interest from that community and the operational needs <br /> I like this better than Package A, but as mentioned there it almost feels like A->B->C is less an <br />outline of distinct plans to settle on and more a series of phases that outline where to prioritize <br />work while implementing an end goal. <br /> I do think Enhanced transit should be installed on the Coburg corridor. But I wonder whether <br />businesses on Coburg are willing to support construction. It would increase ridership <br />considerably over Package A or Package B. <br /> happy to have the whole package for River Rd, would like to see more elsewhere - and more <br />bike/ped safety <br /> Good, but we want more investment. <br /> Good balance between cost and impact. <br /> focus on low-income/minority populations <br /> EMX for River road is needed and support or other corridors is useful.. My favorite option <br /> Decreases congestion, enhances safety, financially reasonable <br /> Creates good options, and increases pedestrian safety. <br /> covers most populations and not too bad for biking and walking <br /> Bike/Ped good <br />July 15, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item1