Agenda Packet 7-15-19 Work Session

Home Browse Search

MovingAhead Investment Package Alternatives May 2019 Supplemental Refinement Report 9 Table 2.1 Enhanced Corridor Package Summary of Community Concerns and Support Concerns Support • Capital cost per trip is too high • Need more increase in ridership, reduce travel time, improve safety for people walking and biking • Not enough investment to help community / growing community • Need to stop building mass transit projects • Doesn’t encourage using alternative transportation options • High cost for low benefits • Doesn’t help people who choose to drive cars • Only 56% of investments goes to corridors that have disadvantaged populations / investments not focused on corridors with disadvantage populations • Neutral impact on lifestyle • Low impact in displacing families and businesses • Low impact in removing trees • Low cost means better chance of public support. • Low cost with some increase in ridership • Extra routes at little cost seems promising • Addresses short- and medium-term goals for improving public transit • Ride-time improvements and ridership increase seem like a good value • Benefits all five corridors • Meets biking needs Table 2.2 Package A Summary of Community Concerns and Support Concerns Support • Capital cost per trip is too high • Need more increase in ridership, reduce travel time, improve safety for bicyclist and pedestrians • Not enough investment to help community / growing community • Need to stop building mass transit projects • Doesn’t encourage using alternative forms of transportation • High cost for low benefits • Doesn’t help cars, including at river crossing • Not consistent with big-picture plans • Could isolate disadvantaged populations • Doesn’t help Coburg corridor • Good support for disadvantaged (EmX on River Road) • Low impact on property, trees and parking Table 2.3 Package B Summary of Community Concerns and Support Concerns Support • Capital cost per trip is too high • Need more increase in ridership, reduce travel time, improve safety for bicyclist and pedestrians • Not enough investment to help community / growing community • Need to stop building mass transit projects • Doesn’t encourage using alternative forms of transportation • High cost for low benefits • Doesn’t help cars • Doesn’t help LCC students • Focuses on North Eugene exclusively • Ignores residents in core • A good compromise • Improvements in travel time, safety and ridership • Has a focus on the river crossing • Improves bus service for U of O students • Has a focus on disadvantaged populations • Will work well if it means greater frequency on Coburg Road • Better than Enhanced Corridor and Package A July 15, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item1