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 />May 2019 Investment Package Alternatives MovingAhead <br />26 Supplemental Refinement Report <br />2.1.3 Alternatives Proposed by Community <br />During the in-person and online open houses, participants had the opportunity to build their ideal <br />investment package. The following is a summary of the results of the investment packages built by the <br />community. <br />• 291 people from the in-person and online open houses submitted surveys <br />• Of the 291 survey participants, 249 people proposed a “Build-a-Package” option <br />o Although a No-Build investment package was not proposed, 8% of respondents built a No- <br />Build package <br />• 35% of respondents proposing an ideal package built packages that were the same options as <br />those proposed in the investment packages (Figure 2.10) <br />o 7% of respondents built an investment package that was the same as the proposed <br />Enhanced Corridor Investment Package <br />o 1% of respondents built an investment package that was the same as the proposed <br />Investment Package A <br />o 1% of respondents built an investment package that was the same as the proposed <br />Investment Package B <br />o 5% of respondents built an investment package that was the same as the proposed <br />Investment Package C <br />o 20% of respondents built an investment package that was the same as the proposed EmX <br />Investment Package <br />• 65% of respondents proposed ideal investment packages that were generally close variations of <br />the proposed investment packages (Figure 2.10) <br />General community feedback submitted with the community’s ideal investment packages was varied: <br />• Externalities: Who benefits from what and why is that a good thing? <br />• No effort has been made to identify who will pay the bills and how that group will somehow <br />benefit <br />• I don't understand how any of the long-term costs will be paid for <br />• Focus on using public transport to help alleviate major points of traffic congestion such as the <br />bottlenecks over the rivers <br />• Helping the most people overall is important <br />• Determine where the money would best be spent and focus on those areas <br />• How will people get to/from EmX (last mile)? <br />• What about reduction of pollution and greenhouse gases? <br />• What about auto travel times and congestion? <br />• Why not just put money into the 20-minute concept and not into EMX? <br />• This entire project is not necessary <br />• Aesthetics of bus stops, including overhangs to keep passengers dry <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.