Laserfiche WebLink
MovingAhead Spring 2019 Outreach Summary 72 <br /> As far as ""Percent of Investment in Corridors with Higher Level of Disadvantaged Population"" <br />goes, I think that as long as these corridors are being addressed fairly, they don't need to have <br />the highest percentage of overall investment. That wording is tricky. Just treat them as equally <br />important and make sure they have equally good options! <br /> Like greater investment in EMX corridors on high traffic corridors such as 30th and Coburg Rd. <br />Includes EMX options in high priority area and has possibility of increasing ridership most <br />significantly. Highest level of achieving local goals. <br /> largest increase in ridership <br /> It's visionary, but unclear where the money would come to pay for it. This is a lot of investment <br />and the transit travel times aren't very much higher than Package C, which is much more <br />affordable. This package doesn't set clear priorities for investments - what comes first? <br /> it's the best among the available options, even though it affects so many trees, because it <br />prepares best for the future. <br /> It’s comprehensive, rapid, and connects well with popular existing routes of demand and high <br />investment areas. <br /> It is time <br /> It is the only package that has EmX for Coburg road which desperately needs improved traffic <br />flow and accessibility for pedestrians and bicyclists. <br /> I'm most in favor of this option. As a business owner on Coburg Road, I would love to be able to <br />get to my clients downtown and have them get to me via EmX. I'm also highly in favor of safety <br />and access for pedestrians and bicyclists, as my girlfriend often bikes from the University to my <br />office on Coburg Road. Our community is going to continue to grow, and it just kind of seems to <br />me like we will eventually need investment around this level at some point. We might as well do <br />it now and enjoy the benefits, instead of some kind of half-measure that feels more like playing <br />catch-up. <br /> If we're going to increase transit ridership, and encourage walking and biking along with it, we <br />have to get serious. <br /> If the system actually becomes fully utilized, this would be my preferred option. My concern is <br />that the ridership won't warrant the need for a full EmX line on some of these routes. If your <br />stats and future projections show that this system will be uses or need to be put in place for <br />future growth, I would put this over the package B. <br /> I’m tossed! Better, faster bus service could increase ridership but the cost & negative impacts <br />are something to discuss. <br /> I would LOVE emx on 30th. What do your accountants say about the operating costs? How much <br />of those costs involve creation of new jobs -- another benefit for the community? <br /> I use the West Eugene EmX to travel to the UO for work every day, and I much prefer it to my <br />options for the regular buses and having to transfer downtown, so I support further expansion; <br />however, this option is very costly and I think it tries to do too much too quickly. It has a lot of <br />support, and meets top priorities well, but the high cost and very high level of impact, don't <br />really support this aggressive approach. At the same time this is balanced by the way it covers <br />high priority items. If there is a lot of state and federal funding to help bring the direct cost to <br />our community down, I would say go for it when that funding is available. <br /> I think this would be an awesome part of a long-term goal (though I wish I saw something about <br />the oft-discussed loop from Commerce around to Gateway). Alas, the cost is unappealing and I <br />July 15, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item1