Laserfiche WebLink
MovingAhead Spring 2019 Outreach Summary 80 <br />Cost <br /> How to make investments at a reasonable cost per incremental ride. In the Faroe islands they <br />built a freaking undersea tunnel for less than $40MM US. Apparently we can't do public works in <br />this country without setting mountains of cash on fire. <br /> Avoid the shotgun approach where you spread the money around evenly. Determine where the <br />money would best be spent and focus on those areas. I think ultimately the river road and LLC <br />corridors deserve the most attention. <br /> Do not build <br /> Money is not spent well with the amount of riders. I would rather drive an electric car <br /> Money is (a) resource. <br /> We do well to keep costs down in striving for sustainability <br /> Investment is important too when it is honed and maximizes outcome results. <br /> I think we need to stay within our means to pay. Housing is becoming so expensive that it's <br />taking money away from other projects because the public simply cannot afford to pay for <br />everything. I also think it's important to keep as many trees as possible while making it safer for <br />pedestrians and bicyclists. The disadvantaged population needs public transportation probably <br />more than anyone, so hopefully we can meet those needs. The one good thing about an EmX <br />route on River Road is that it might free up some traffic on Belt Line. <br /> Keep the total capital cost down as well as the annual operating cost. Ridership will not increase <br />as much as projected. See Tri-Met numbers in Portland. <br /> Not wanted or needed in Santa Clara and river road <br /> So few people are truly prepared to support long term investment; rather than the cheap and <br />simple fix that does not solve the long range issues. <br /> While promoting increased transit use is important, costs need to be balanced with realistic <br />expectations as to what those increases in ridership are likely to be. <br /> It needs to be clear how to pay for it and what the prioritization within a package is - what <br />comes first? Second? Third? <br /> we will need all EmX service eventually, sooner built means lower cost and reaping the vital <br />benefits asap. <br /> Most of these plans seem largely unneeded, and very expensive. I don't see most of these <br />options as being worth the construction, cost, or time. <br /> Seriously, this city will not support a massive funding operation. <br /> Our need to balance current costs and current rider impact needs to be weighed against the <br />future economic growth potential, and balance all that against future costs of building along <br />these same expansions. <br /> Large investment options only become more expensive in the future. Flexibility important if <br />picture in year 5 changes goals. Please quantify carbon impacts. Success should be calculated. <br />would be helpful to clarify some of the enhanced option measures. community involvement is <br />great, but you should also share your expertise and reasoning for your preferred option. <br /> I'm all for.reduced congestion; increased safety particularly for pedestrians and bicyclists. <br />enhanced opps for disadvantaged (so it seems like more bus stops are better than fewer); <br />sustainable operating costs; and fitting in with the larger transportation network. I would need <br />July 15, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item1