My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packet 7-15-19 Work Session
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Public Meetings
>
City Council
>
2019
>
07-15-19
>
Agenda Packet 7-15-19 Work Session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/5/2019 4:50:41 PM
Creation date
7/5/2019 4:41:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City_Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Packet
City_Council_Meeting_Type
Work Session
City_Council_Meeting_Date
7/15/2019
City_Council_Effective_Date
7/15/2019
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
212
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />MovingAhead Investment Package Alternatives May 2019 <br /> Supplemental Refinement Report 11 <br />• Use existing ROW widths whenever possible to achieve the goals of installing EmX lanes and <br />bike lanes while also preserving mature trees and existing properties. <br />• Suggesting that no build zones are against public opinion and safety while insinuating all 5 EmX <br />corridors are supported by the general public, and that it is for the greater good, points to <br />biased positions this City's governing personnel have always taken. <br />• More frequent buses are more important that faster driving time for the buses. <br />• Stop pushing EmX. Subscription transport is going to eat your lunch in five years. <br />• Full EmX, just go as fast as we can fund. <br />• Where are plans to upgrade sidewalks to the basic level of safety? <br />• I would love to support the project but do have concerns about the cost. <br />2.1.2 Investment Criteria <br />Based on the MovingAhead project’s Purpose and Need, and Goals and Objectives a set of evaluation <br />criteria were developed and used to aid in selecting recommended mode options in each corridor to <br />build investment packages. <br />The five investment package options were compared using some evaluation criteria from the corridor- <br />level evaluation plus some new criteria tailored to help assess systemwide benefits of the packages. The <br />criteria used to evaluate the investment packages are listed in Table 2.6. <br /> <br />Table 2.6 Investment Package Evaluation Criteria <br />Investment Package Evaluation Criteria <br />Capital Cost <br />Systemwide Annual Operating Cost (Change from No-Build) <br />Transit Travel Time Improvement <br />Systemwide Annual Ridership Increase (Compared to No-Build) <br />New Bicycle/Pedestrian Access & Safety Investments <br />Support Development & Redevelopment <br />Number of Medium and Large Trees Impacted <br />Number/Acreage of Acquisitions <br />Potential Business Relocations <br />Parking Impacts: On-Street / Off-Street <br />Percent of Investment in Corridors with Higher Level of Disadvantaged Population <br />Support from the Public <br />Consistency with Local Plans and Policies <br /> <br />2.1.2.1 Proposed Investment Packages Most Important Criteria <br />Participants were asked to choose five criteria (from among 13) that they found most important in <br />evaluating proposed packages. <br />July 15, 2019, Joint Work Session – Item1
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.