Laserfiche WebLink
MovingAhead Spring 2019 Outreach Summary 65 <br /> Again, spend the money on bridges over the river, retrofit the I-5 bridge to allow Franklin to NB <br />I-5 and SB I-5 to Franklin <br /> it is extremely expensive and will also cost the community much time, effort, and interruption. It <br />is of course the best choice for transit, but I'm not sure that this level of service is necessary to <br />achieve most of the community's goals. <br /> I don't think EmX to LCC is a good idea, prefer less costly options. <br /> I do not want this amount of cost to go into this or for this amount of road constructions to <br />happen. <br /> High cost, low benefit. <br /> High capital and operating costs，Completely unnecessary <br /> Far too expensive to operate and to build. Too many trees impacted, lots of impacts on parking, <br />and serving only 50% of disadvantaged population. <br /> Expensive, when the houding crisis is what it is <br /> EmX is too expensive for the tax base and is not generally needed. <br /> Cost prohibitive. <br /> As a bus rider, I would like having all the EmX lines, but don't think it is worth the cost. I would <br />use the EmX up Hwy 99 a lot and would use the others some. <br /> Absolutely a waste of resources. Not enough ridership to support it. <br />Opposition on principle <br /> You know how you could help us better? Quit taxing us so much and quit forcing mandatory <br />minimum wages and the cost of goods will be so low that we won't have to rely on the <br />government for transportation as we will all be able to own our own cars giving us all more <br />individual freedom of travel. You don't want that though do you. You just want us to be <br />dependent on you for everything for the rest of our lives. You are an enemy to freedom and the <br />American way of life. <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 /> User fees could never hope to meet costs to build and operate this underutilized resource, and <br />the plan appears to be a monument to the creators of the system to perpetuate their <br />employment. Who will pay the 335 million, the pedestrian who walks for free or the senior <br />citizen who rides for a reduced pass fare, Or cyclists who rarely even license their bikes? Why <br />encourage more congestion along major arterial routes and pollute the air the walkers and <br />bikers breath with vehicle fumes? <br /> Was any thought given to alternate pathways parallel to these routes for project users? <br /> This package is the least sustainable of all. $8.2 million in increased operating costs? You know <br />as well as I do that's on the low side. You know as well as I do that amount isn't in your current <br />revenue forecasts (even if the forecasters were stoned). You know as well as I do that can only <br />mean increased taxes. Add on hundreds of millions of capital costs, a dramatic reduction in <br />quality of life, health effects from increased emissions and I can't see how this is even remotely <br />viable. Why is LTD afraid of a public vote? <br /> The capital cost and increased annual budget is more than can be sustained. This will hurt so <br />many people and business' with the enormous tax increase that this will inevitably bring. Larger <br />investment with no monies in budget to pay means larger increase in taxes which hurts the very <br />July 15, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item1