The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet 2-19-19 Work SessionFebruary 19, 2019, Work Session EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA February 19, 2019 5:30 p.m. JOINT MEETING OF THE EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AND THE LANE TRANSIT DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND WORK SESSION OF THE EUGENE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97401 Meeting of February 19, 2019; Her Honor Mayor Lucy Vinis Presiding Councilors Betty Taylor, President Emily Semple, Vice President Mike Clark Greg Evans Chris Pryor Claire Syrett Jennifer Yeh Alan Zelenka 5:30 p.m. JOINT MEETING OF THE EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AND THE LANE TRANSIT DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND WORK SESSION OF THE EUGENE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97401 1. JOINT WORK SESSION: MovingAhead Project Update 2. URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY UPDATE: Downtown Riverfront Redevelopment February 19, 2019, Work Session For the hearing impaired, an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours' notice prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hours' notice. To arrange for these services, contact the receptionist at 541-682-5010. City Council meetings are telecast live on Metro Television, Comcast channel 21, and rebroadcast later in the week. El consejo de la Ciudad de Eugene agradece su interés en estos asuntos de la agenda. El lugar de la reunión tiene acceso para sillas de ruedas. Se puede proveer a un intérprete para las personas con discapacidad auditiva si avisa con 48 horas de anticipación. También se puede proveer interpretación para español si avisa con 48 horas de anticipación. Para reservar estos servicios llame al 541-682-5010. Las reuniones del consejo de la ciudad se transmiten en vivo por Metro Television, Canal 21 de Comcast y son retransmitidas durante la semana. For more information, contact the Council Coordinator at 541-682-5010, or visit us online at www.eugene-or.gov. February 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Work Session: MovingAhead Project Update Meeting Date: February 19, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 1 Department: Public Works, Planning and Development Staff Contact: Chris Henry www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-8472 ISSUE STATEMENT The City of Eugene and Lane Transit District, with the help of other regional partners, are collaborating on the MovingAhead project to determine how best to invest in the main corridors that connect neighborhoods, shopping areas and places of employment. Building on years of long-range planning in the community, MovingAhead is an implementation effort that will result in prioritized investments in transit, walking and biking projects in each of five corridors that are identified in Envision Eugene, LTD’s Long-Range Transit Plan, and the Eugene 2035 Transportation System Plan. This work session is an opportunity for the Eugene City Council and LTD Board of Directors to learn about proposed corridor investment packages, provide feedback and ask questions. The Eugene City Council and LTD Board of Directors will be asked to affirm the proposed corridor investment packages at this meeting, in advance of public comment. BACKGROUND In 2015, the MovingAhead project kicked off with public workshops held along the corridors under consideration. At each workshop, local residents were asked to design their ideal street to accommodate people walking, biking, using mobility devices, driving and using transit. After gathering that public input, the project team developed conceptual designs on which the formal technical analysis was conducted. These conceptual designs include Enhanced Corridor and Emerald Express alternatives, as well as a No-Build alternative (descriptions may be found in the Executive Summary, Attachment A). Comprehensive bus rapid transit—known as EmX locally—is a recognizable transit service in the community. A No-Build alternative assumes maintaining the current service on a street in the short term (5-10 years). On a continuum of transit service investments, the Enhanced Corridor alternatives fall between the other two alternatives, thereby providing improved transit service and reliability through less intensive infrastructure investments compared to EmX. These may include traffic signal prioritization for buses or additional lanes near intersections to create a February 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 1 “queue jump,” which allows buses to bypass points of congestion. There are complementary pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure investments in both the EmX and Enhanced Corridor alternatives. The Eugene City Council and LTD Board of Directors have received project updates and twice taken action to focus the MovingAhead analysis on five major corridors. In October 2015, the City Council and LTD Board advanced the following MovingAhead corridors for further study to evaluate an EmX alternative, an Enhanced Corridor alternative, and a No-Build alternative: • Highway 99 Corridor • River Road Corridor • Coburg Road Corridor • 30th Avenue/Lane Community College Corridor Also, the City Council and LTD Board recommended that the Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard Corridor advance with an Enhanced Corridor alternative and a No-Build alternative. This direction was reaffirmed in April 2016 by a joint action of the two bodies. With City Council and LTD Board direction to proceed, MovingAhead is developing the groundwork for five transportation corridors simultaneously instead of one-by-one, as has been the past practice for other EmX projects. This system-level approach readies projects for funding and construction. It also gains efficiencies in the environmental analysis and reduces the time to deliver important transportation services to the community. It’s a responsible approach to understand the complexities of environmental impacts and benefits of the EmX, Enhanced Corridor, and No-build alternatives. The MovingAhead project has performed an Alternatives Analysis that was prepared to support the federal National Environmental Policy Act process. In 2018, the Alternatives Analysis was released for public comment. Comments received shaped the proposed corridor investment packages being considered for further public review and comment. Locally, Lane Transit District and the City of Eugene are committed to a public engagement process that supports informed decision-making that considers effects on people, the planet and economic prosperity (the triple-bottom-line). Taken together, these efforts are a comprehensive approach to make investment decisions that support the community now and as it grows into the future. Preliminary Results of the Technical Analysis The results of the technical analysis are summarized for each corridor in an Executive Summary (Attachment A) and Alternatives Analysis report (also available on the project website at www.MovingAhead.org). Staff will provide a brief overview of the results during the work session. Multifaceted Public Involvement When the technical analysis was complete, the project shifted into a more intense period of public involvement, comprised of several activities. First, letters were distributed to property owners February 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 1 whose properties are potentially affected by the concept designs, with an invitation to meet and discuss. The project team also attended community events to inform people of the process schedule, opportunities to review, and ways to provide feedback on the technical analysis. In late summer 2018, the draft analysis was released for an initial round of public review and feedback. The public review period is divided into two phases. The initial public review period in September and October 2018 allowed community members to provide corridor-specific feedback on the investments in their neighborhood, near their business or place of employment, or the streets where they travel most. This review period included four large open houses as well as listening sessions with under-represented stakeholder groups. A concurrent online open house was also available (on the project website at www.MovingAhead.org). The corridor-specific feedback allowed the project team to correct any inaccuracies in the technical analysis and compile several investment package options for the next phase of public review. In spring 2019, during the second round of public review, residents can provide feedback on packages that contain different combinations of proposed alternatives. With five corridors under evaluation, there are abundant options for aligning different corridor investments in a package. One of the three alternatives will be advanced for each corridor, either EmX, Enhanced Corridor, or No-Build. Each combination will be evaluated based on (1) the MovingAhead project criteria and (2) the comprehensive benefits across the LTD system. This second public review period will include one large open house as well as an online open house. Once the public review of the proposed packages concludes, the project team will share that feedback with decision-makers or consider additional packages, as necessary. Decision-Making Process The MovingAhead project includes an Oversight Committee and a Sounding Board. The Oversight Committee is comprised of elected and appointed officials and executive staff from the City, LTD, the Oregon Department of Transportation, and Lane County, while the Sounding Board members come from and represent numerous City of Eugene and LTD committees and commissions. Both entities review project proposals, offer critical feedback to the project management team, and act as conduits back to their constituencies and fellow committee/commission members. Both bodies will continue to meet throughout 2019 to ensure broad distribution of project information and preparation for the final decision-making process. A process schedule is included here as Attachment E. In 2018, the MovingAhead project team finalized the technical analysis and conducted extensive public engagement to gather feedback on the analysis and potential corridor investments. Following that outreach, the project team developed a range of potential investment packages planned for public review and comment in March and April 2019. Following that outreach, staff plan to report back in June with what was heard from the community. The Oversight Committee will make a formal recommendation to the LTD Board and Eugene City Council. LTD’s Strategic Planning Committee will also make a recommendation to the LTD Board. The formal decision-making process by the Eugene City Council and LTD Board of Directors is planned for fall 2019. At that time, the Eugene City Council and LTD Board of Directors will hold a joint public hearing, deliberate, and will be asked to select a preferred package of February 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 1 investments for people walking, biking, using mobility devices, and using transit. The decision by Eugene City Council and LTD Board of Directors will select a preferred package of transportation investments (e.g., EmX, Enhanced Corridor, or No-build alternatives) to be completed within 10 years. The selected package will be advanced to the next MovingAhead project phase, which will include seeking design and construction funding, preparing final NEPA environmental reviews, and initiating the Federal Transit Administration project development process for qualifying projects. This future phase will also include design refinements, which will be based on feedback receivee during the public review period this year and subsequent outreach to stakekholders along the corridors where projects are advanced. The selected package will include designs that reflect community priorities and enable the City and LTD to make smaller, strategic investments such as safer pedestrian crossings within the larger corridor visions. This type of incremental implementation allows investments today that address the community’s needs without precluding the ability to later construct a larger project. PREVIOUS COUNCIL DIRECTION The MovingAhead project is in alignment and consistent with policy direction contained in Envision Eugene, the Eugene 2035 Transportation System Plan, Eugene’s Climate Recovery Ordinance, LTD’s Long-Range Transit Plan, and the Regional Transportation Plan. Additionally, the project structure has embraced a triple bottom line approach. This approach is part of the NEPA-required technical analysis. It is further reinforced in the composition of the Sounding Board and the evaluation criteria used to analyze each corridor alternative. October 12, 2015, Meeting Move to direct the City Manager to advance the following MovingAhead corridors for further study to evaluate an EmX alternative, an Enhanced Corridor alternative and a no-build alternative during the Level 2 alternative analysis: • Highway 99 Corridor • River Road Corridor • Coburg Road Corridor • 30th Avenue-Lane Community College Corridor And, direct the City Manager to advance the Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard Corridor as an Enhanced Corridor as part of the Level 2 alternative analysis. (Motion Passed) Lane Transit District Board unanimously passed a similar motion. April 25, 2016, Work Session Moved to recommend action to further study the following MovingAhead corridor alternatives for evaluation of an alternative for the Alternative Analysis: • Highway 99 Corridor • River Road/30th Avenue/Lane Community College Corridor • Coburg Road Corridor February 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 1 And, recommend that the Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard Corridor alternative advance as an Enhanced Corridor and a No-Build alternative for the Alternative Analysis. (Motion Passed) Lane Transit District Board unanimously passed a similar motion. COUNCIL AND BOARD OPTIONS In separate actions, the Eugene City Council and Lane Transit District Board of Directors may choose to: A. Affirm the Proposed Investment Packages as presented for public review. B. Modify the Proposed Investment Packages for public review. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends Option A. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to direct staff to take the MovingAhead Proposed Investment Packages described in Attachments C and D out for public review. ATTACHMENTS A. MovingAhead Executive Summary B. MovingAhead Outreach Summary C. MovingAhead Proposed Investment Packages Technical Document D. MovingAhead Proposed Investment Packages Handout E. MovingAhead Project Timeline FOR MORE INFORMATION Please visit the project website at www.MovingAhead.org. Staff Contact: Chris Henry, Transportation Planning Engineer Telephone: 541-682-8472 Staff E-Mail: CHenry@eugene-or.us Staff Contact: Terri Harding, Principal Planner Telephone: 541-682-5635 Staff E-Mail: THarding@eugene-or.gov Staff Contact: Andrew Martin, Lane Transit District Development Planning Associate Telephone: 541-682-6116 Staff E-Mail: Andrew.Martin@ltd.org Alternatives Analysis Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A joint project of the City of Eugene and Lane Transit District SEPTEMBER 2018 February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 Acknowledgments The City of Eugene and Lane Transit District gratefully acknowledge the e orts of every agency, committee, community organization, business and citizen who assisted in the development and evaluation of the MovingAhead project alternatives. A detailed list is included in the Alternative Analysis Report. Partners The City of Eugene Lane Transit District Agency Partners Federal Transit Administration Lane Council of Governments Lane County Oregon Department of Transportation City of Springﬁ eld February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 Table of Contents What is MovingAhead 3 Project Goals 4 Community Involvement 5 Investment Options 6 Corridor Findings 8 Evaluation Criteria 9 Corridors Highway 99 Corridor 10 River Road Corridor 14 30th Avenue (Downtown) to LCC Corridor 18 Coburg Road Corridor 22 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard. Corridor 26 Funding Plan 29 Next Steps 30 What is an Alternatives Analysis? An Alternatives Analysis is a part of established transportation planning practice that uses in-depth analyses to understand the trade-o s behind di erent options and how they compare on a variety of criteria. It is also an important ﬁ rst step in securing federal funding for local projects. An e ective analysis answers critical project questions about each investment option, such as: • What are the current and anticipated problems and opportunities that need to be addressed? • What are the underlying causes of the problems? • What changes are needed to achieve future goals? • What are options for addressing the problems? • What are the costs, impacts, and beneﬁ ts of each potential solution? • How can impacts be avoided or minimized? The purpose of this alternatives analysis is to: • Help select the best investments for each corridor that support local plans; • Prioritize which corridor investments should occur ﬁ rst; and • Identify realistic funding options. Locally, the City of Eugene and Lane Transit District have a commitment to a public engagement process that supports informed decision-making that considers e ects on people, our planet, and economic prosperity (the triple-bottom-line). Collectively, these e orts are a comprehensive approach to decision-making that support our community now and as we grow into the future. Table of Contents | 1February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MOVINGAHEAD?WHAT IS February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 Eugene is growing – we expect 34,000 new people and 37,000 new jobs in our community by 2032. MovingAhead will help manage growth in a way that enhances our quality of life and reﬂ ects our shared community values. MovingAhead began in 2015 as a partnership between the City of Eugene, Lane Transit District (LTD), regional agencies, and the Eugene-Springﬁ eld community. The purpose of the project was to determine what transportation investments are needed on some of our most important streets. Driven by community needs and values, MovingAhead is built on community feedback and existing plans. MovingAhead is focused on creating active, vibrant places that are safe and accessible, that serve the community and economy, and that will accommodate future growth. MovingAhead is about more than just transit: it considers a range of options for getting us where we need to go, whether we ride the bus, bike, drive, use mobility devices, or walk. This document summarizes the Alternatives Analysis, a key step in the planning process. Based on previous community feedback, the MovingAhead team focused on ﬁ ve key corridors and identiﬁ ed the costs and beneﬁ ts of various transportation investments for each. This analysis is a tool to help our community determine when and where to focus our investments over the next 10 years. A funding plan will be developed that outlines how to implement these corridor investments and will consider all potential funding options and the timing of each to deliver the most e cient solution for each corridor. At the conclusion of the project, the Eugene City Council and LTD Board of Directors will select a package of transit, walking, and biking investments across the ﬁ ve corridors that can be funded and built over the next 10 years. This list of prioritized investments will become a powerful tool for implementing local and regional land use, transportation, and community plans. BUILDING A BETTER TRANSPORTATION FUTURE What is MovingAhead? | 3February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 NeighborhoodsNeighborhoodsNeighborhoodsNeighborhoodsNeighborhoodsNeighborhoodsNeighborhoodsNeighborhoodsNeighborhoodsNeighborhoodsNeighborhoodsNeighborhoodsNeighborhoodsNeighborhoodsNeighborhoodsNeighborhoodsNeighborhoodsNeighborhoodsNeighborhoods Mixed TransitionalMixed TransitionalMixed TransitionalMixed TransitionalMixed TransitionalMixed Transitional Transit CorridorTransit CorridorTransit Corridor Oak SavannahOak SavannahOak SavannahOak SavannahOak SavannahOak Savannah NeighborhoodsNeighborhoodsNeighborhoods Mixed TransitionalMixed TransitionalMixed TransitionalMixed TransitionalMixed Transitional ParksParks Built on Past Planning Envision Eugene is a community-based plan for accommodating new residents and jobs while protecting our quality of life and reﬂ ecting our shared values. A key element of Envision Eugene is a multimodal transportation system that provides mobility and transportation options while supporting compact urban development, sustainability, and a ordable housing. MovingAhead supports Envision Eugene by identifying the most important and cost-e ective investments in multimodal transportation along our major streets. MovingAhead also builds on the hard work of past planning e orts, including: Lane Transit District’s Long-Range Transit Plan; the Eugene 2035 Transportation System Plan (Eugene 2035 TSP); and the Central Lane Metropolitan Planning Organization Regional Transportation Plan (RTP ). Project Goals MovingAhead’s ultimate goal is to create a 10-year investment plan for ﬁ ve key corridors in Eugene that will improve safety and accessibility for all modes of transportation - whether walking, biking, using a mobility device, taking the bus, or driving. The project is also dedicated to ensuring that these investments help improve the overall quality of life of our community. To achieve this purpose and meet our community’s needs and values, the work has been guided by a set of overall Goals and Objectives. The Purpose, Needs, Goals, and Objectives for MovingAhead were developed based upon community values that were articulated in existing local policies and previous planning e orts and reﬁ ned through initial project outreach. Goal 1 Improve multimodal transit corridor service Improve transit travel time and reliability, minimize transfers, increase ridership, and improve access and safety for people walking, bicycling, and using mobility devices. Goal 2 Meet current and future transit demand in a cost-e ective and sustainable manner Control costs while increasing transit capacity to meet demand. Leverage funding opportunities that provide a maximum return on investment. Minimize impacts to the environment. Goal 3 Support economic development, revitalization, and land use opportunities for the corridor Support and coordinate with other planned development and transportation projects and provide high-capacity transit that is consistent with the community vision. Minimize impacts to businesses and industry and improve transit so as to provide beneﬁ ts to vehicles, freight, and emergency services. 4 | Executive Summary: MovingAhead Alternatives Analysis ReportFebruary 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 Transit CorridorTransit CorridorTransit CorridorTransit CorridorTransit CorridorTransit CorridorTransit CorridorTransit CorridorTransit CorridorTransit CorridorTransit CorridorTransit CorridorTransit CorridorTransit CorridorTransit Corridor DOWNTOWN COREDOWNTOWN COREDOWNTOWN COREDOWNTOWN COREDOWNTOWN COREDOWNTOWN COREDOWNTOWN COREDOWNTOWN COREDOWNTOWN COREDOWNTOWN CORE ParksParksParksParksParksParksParksParksParksParksParksParksParksParksParksParks OfficeOfficeOfficeOfficeOfficeOfficeOfficeOfficeOfficeOfficeOffice IndustryIndustryIndustryIndustry AgriculturalAgricultural Wetlands/RuralWetlands/RuralWetlands/RuralWetlands/RuralWetlands/RuralWetlands/RuralWetlands/RuralWetlands/RuralWetlands/Rural Low DensityLow DensityLow DensityLow DensityLow DensityLow Density AgriculturalAgriculturalAgriculturalAgriculturalAgriculturalAgricultural Community Involvement MovingAhead continues a tradition of proactive public engagement that supported the City’s Envision Eugene process. MovingAhead aspires to implement the collective vision and ideas included in several existing plans, such as Envision Eugene and LTD’s Long-Range Transit Plan. These plans are the culmination of decades of community engagement and input. MovingAhead builds o these plans and continues the community conversation set forth from these earlier e orts. Community involvement for MovingAhead got underway in 2015 with workshops to solicit input that informed the evaluation criteria and explored and identiﬁ ed which corridors should be advanced for further evaluation. During these meetings, the public shared what they knew about important destinations, barriers, desired transportation investments, and the importance of corridor features such as parking, trees, and sidewalks. Feedback from these workshops, an online open house, and other public comments determined the ﬁ ve corridors and the three levels of investment options that have been evaluated in the Alternatives Analysis. For more information about public feedback, refer to Chapter 2 of the Alternative Analysis report: “Outreach and Involvement.” What we heard Public comments have generally encouraged further investment to support walking, bicycling, and taking transit. Corridor-speciﬁ c comments provided detailed information on safety concerns and facility needs within each corridor that were incorporated into the development of each corridor option. “There should be more separation of bike lanes and transit all over to improve safety for all users.” “I have concerns about how access to business will be a ected by transit changes.” “I would like to see improved connectivity between bike lanes and paved paths.” “The addition of EmX lanes is good for Eugene and use will increase with growth.” Project Goals & Community Involvement | 5February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 Investment Options Public feedback and community conversations helped deﬁ ne three investment options that were considered within four of the ﬁ ve corridors (only two options were explored for MLK, Jr. Boulevard). A low and high investment option looked at varying degrees of improvements, such as pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and transit enhancements, as well as improvements along the street like sidewalks, trees, and lighting. These were compared to what would happen without the MovingAhead project, referred to here as a “No-Build” option. Center Dedicated Transit Lanes Bicycle Lane Behind Station/Stop Buses use exclusive transit lanes in the street median Bicycle lane passes behind transit boarding area. Protected Bicycle Facility Enhanced Pedestrian Crossing Bicycle lane is buered from the adjacent travel lane.Pedestrian crossing is deﬁned by a marked crosswalk and ﬂashing lights. Protected Bicycle Facility Enhanced Pedestrian Crossing Bicycle lane is buered from the adjacent travel lane.Pedestrian crossing is deﬁned by a marked crosswalk and ﬂashing lights. The “build options” refer to the Enhanced Corridor and EmX Alternatives that would provide for infrastructure or facility upgrades along the corridor. The No-Build Alternative would leave the corridor as it is. Upgraded and Enhanced Crossings New crossings would generally be located at mid-block locations away from intersections and may include accessible ramps, pedestrian islands, striping, or ﬂ ashing beacons. Bicycle Improvements Upgrades may include separated, protected bike lanes and routing bike lanes behind transit stations. Toolbox for Enhanced Corridor and EmX Options No-Build Alternative (No new investments at this time) This option is helpful as a reference point to measure the relative beneﬁ ts, costs, and impacts of the build alternatives. Under the No-Build option, the City and LTD would only make changes that are already planned as part of other projects. No additional investments would be made as a part of the MovingAhead project. 6 | Executive Summary: MovingAhead Alternatives Analysis ReportFebruary 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 Business Access/Transit (BAT) Lane BAT lanes are used by buses and right-turning trac.Bus gets a green light a few seconds before other trac. Queue Jump RIGHT LANE BUS & RIGHT TURN ONLY Business Access/Transit (BAT) Lane BAT lanes are used by buses and right-turning trac.Bus gets a green light a few seconds before other trac. Queue Jump RIGHT LANE BUS & RIGHT TURN ONLY Center Dedicated Transit Lanes Bicycle Lane Behind Station/Stop Buses use exclusive transit lanes in the street median Bicycle lane passes behind transit boarding area. Transit Queue Jumps Queue jumps reduce transit delay at signals and improve the e ciency of the transit system by allowing buses to proceed through signals ahead of other vehicles. Business Access and Transit (BAT) Lanes BAT lanes are reserved for buses and turning vehicles. These lanes allow access to businesses, improve transit reliability, reduce travel time, and remove buses and turning vehicles from the general tra c lanes. Bus-Only Lanes Bus-only lanes are reserved for transit and may be located in the middle of the street or adjacent to the curb. EmX Alternative (Higher investment option) EmX is short for Emerald Express and is LTD’s branded Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service. EmX currently operates between the Gateway area and west Eugene serving downtown Springﬁ eld, downtown Eugene, and the University of Oregon. Key features include: • Typically a bus every 10 minutes • Bus-only lanes in key locations • Higher capacity multi-door transit vehicles • Enhanced stations with raised platforms • O -board fare collection to allow multi-door boarding • Transit signal priority at intersections • Longer distances between stops • More frequent and redesigned service to improve cross-town connectivity • Greater investment in pedestrian, bicycle, sidewalk, and streetscape improvements than with the Enhanced Corridor options Enhanced Corridor Alternative (Lower investment option) Enhanced Corridor is a new concept for the Eugene-Springﬁ eld region and is intended to improve safety, access, and transit service without requiring major capital investments. Key features include: • Typically a bus every 15 minutes • Consolidating the number of transit stops • Transit signal priority at intersections • Enhancing some bus stops • Improving or building new pedestrian crossings • Filling in gaps in the sidewalk network • Adding accessible sidewalk ramps at intersections • Improving or building new bicycle facilities • Streetscape investments such as lighting and landscaping Investment Options | 7February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 River Road Highway 99 Coburg Road Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard 30th Avenue/LCC (Existing EmX)SPRINGFIELD EUGENE U G B UG B 5 5 Corridor Findings MovingAhead takes a unique approach by comparing investment options within ﬁ ve corridors at once. The project started with a list of 10 potential corridors that were then subject to an evaluation process to determine the best options for near-term investment. An initial review, called a Fatal Flaw Screening, removed alternatives that were not a priority for capital investments over the next 10 years. This was followed by a Level 1 Screening that more thoroughly evaluated the corridors based on public support and the project’s Purpose, Need, Goals, and Objectives. Based on community input and technical analysis, ﬁ ve corridors and alternatives were deemed the most promising for near-term investment, and were advanced to the Level 2 Screening (Alternatives Analysis) described here. Corridors Considered Fatal Flaw Screening Level 1 Screening Level 2 Screening (Alt. Analysis) Enhanced EmX Highway 99 River Road Coburg Road 30th Avenue to LCC MLK, Jr. Blvd/Centennial Blvd. * Main Street-McVay Hwy * Valley River Center × Randy Papé Beltline × 18th Avenue × Bob Straub Parkway × * The Main Street-McVay Highway Corridor and the extension of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. corridor along Centennial Blvd. were advanced for consideration, but have been deferred pending completion of a separate study of safety improvements on Main Street. Five corridors advanced to Alternatives Analysis 8 | Executive Summary: MovingAhead Alternatives Analysis ReportFebruary 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 Evaluation Criteria The alternatives within each of the ﬁ ve corridors were evaluated using various performance measures. The following criteria were determined to be most useful in di erentiating between the alternatives. Cost Capital Cost Capital cost includes estimated costs for vehicles, design, construction, right of way, and project management. Operating Cost This is the estimated annual cost to operate and maintain the service. This includes paying operators, vehicle maintenance and fuel, as well as administrative and overhead costs. Transit Performance +In Vehicle Transit Travel Time Savings This measure estimates how long it would take for someone to travel from the end of the line to Eugene Station during the afternoon peak hour. +Ridership Increase Annual transit ridership as projected for the year 2035 using the regional transportation model. Bicycling & Walking +New Bicycle/Pedestrian Access & Safety Improvements This criterion is based on the amount of proposed investment in bicycle and pedestrian improvements in each corridor. Property & Development Impacts +Support Development & Redevelopment This is an assessment of how well the alternative supports development and redevelopment as identiﬁ ed in adopted plans. Tree Impacts This criterion is based on the number of medium and large trees which may need to be removed. Number/Acreage of Acquisitions This criterion is based on the number and total acreage of properties that would potentially need to be purchased. Potential Property Displacements This measure indicates the number of residences or businesses that may be displaced as a result of constructing the project. Parking Impacts This criterion considers the amount of on-street and o -street parking that may need to be removed. Jobs & Population +Existing Jobs & Population Served These estimates are based on the No-Build and Enhanced Corridor Alternatives providing transit that serves people working and living within ¼ mile of the corridor and the EmX Alternative serving people working and living within ½ mile of the corridor. Highway 99 Corridor Enhanced Corridor Alternative This map shows the transit, bicycle, and pedestrian investments included in the Highway 99 Enhanced Corridor Alternative. The table below provides a comparison of this alternative with the No-Build and EmX Alternatives. W I L L A M E T T E N O R T H W E S T E X P R E S S W A Y H W Y 9 9 RANDY PAPE BELTLINE DOWNTOWN W 11TH AVE W 6TH AVE W 7TH AVE 105 WILLAMETTE HIGH SCHOOL BARGER CU B I T S T E C H O H O L L O W R D TA N E Y S T B E T H E L D R ROYAL AVE ELMIRA RD ROOSEVELT BLVD W 1ST AVE W 5TH AVE W 7TH PL GA R F I E L D S T C H A M B E R S S T W 13TH AVE WI L L A M E T T E S T Bike/ped bridge to Trainsong Park Dedicated Bus Turn Lane at Barger Drive on Hwy 99 One Way Business Access and Transit Lane Business Access and Transit Lane Existing 1/4 1/2 3/401 Mile N Dedicated Transit Lane Business Access & Transit Lane Roadway Improvements No Roadway Changes Existing EmX Line New or Improved Stop Existing Stop Bicycling improvements Enhanced Pedestrian Crossing Bicycling Walking Driving & Riding MAP LEGEND 1 2 3 3 2 1 1 Mitigation measures would be used to avoid or reduce impacts Supports Project Criteria Does not Support Project Criteria Jobs Population Existing Jobs & Population Served 15,000 15,000 29,000 34,000 34,000 50,000 Support Development and Redevelopment (1-5 rating) Number of Medium and Large Trees Impacted Number/Acreage of Acquisitions Potential Property Displacements Parking Impacts: On-Street/O-Street (number of spaces) Property & Development Impacts 0 14 40 0/0 44/1.3 38/1.6 0 0 0 0/0 0/50 0/53 New Bike/Ped Access and Safety Improvements (1-5 rating) Bicycling & Walking Cost Capital Cost EmXNo-Build EnhancedCorridor $0.0M $38.0M -$0.1M $2.8M$0.0MSystemwide Annual Operating Cost (Change from No-Build) Systemwide Annual Ridership Increase (Compared to No-Build) Transit Performance 0 min 10 min 12 min 0 111,000 267,000 In-Vehicle Transit Travel Time Savings $67.0M 2 These estimates are based on the No-Build and Enhanced Corridor Alternatives providing transit that serves people working and living within ¼ mile of the corridor and the EmX Alternative serving people working and living within ½ mile of the corridor. Ratings are coded by color to indicate how well they support project critera. Environmental Analysis Seventeen environmental topics were evaluated as part of the Alternatives Analysis, including impacts and beneﬁ ts to air quality, water quality, and natural resources. Generally, the studies found minimal di erences between the corridor alternatives. (For more detail refer to the AA report Chapters 3-8.) Corridor Findings & Evaluation Criteria | 9February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 The Highway 99 Corridor begins at the Eugene Station and overlaps with EmX West, travels through downtown, then extends northwest along Highway 99 to Barger Drive, turning west at Barger Drive to terminate north of the intersection of Barger Drive and Cubit Street, east of the Randy Papé Beltline Highway. Overview Compared to the No-Build Alternative, the Enhanced Corridor and EmX Alternatives signiﬁ cantly decrease transit travel time (by 10 and 12 minutes, respectively) and would increase ridership more than any other corridor (by 111,000 and 267,000 annual trips, respectively). Both build alternatives would provide more frequent transit service. The No-Build Alternative avoids impacts (including property acquisitions, o -street parking impacts, and potential tree removal) and costs, but does not provide the same level of beneﬁ ts compared to the Enhanced Corridor and EmX Alternatives. What We Heard • Pedestrian and bicycle crossings are presently unsafe, make the environment safer. • Good Enhanced Corridor candidate because of anticipated long-term changes . • Railroad yards are a major obstacle - Maxwell Road to Roosevelt Boulevard. • Bus service is not frequent enough. • Highway 99 is hard to cross for pedestrian/bikes. • Lack of bike lanes north of Bethel Drive. • Opposition to EmX Investments within the boundary of the Je erson Westside Neighborhood (JWN). Addressing Community Concerns Both build alternatives provide new investments in bicycle and pedestrian connectivity and safety, including a bicycle and pedestrian bridge connecting the Trainsong Neighborhood to the Highway 99 Corridor. Both build alternatives would also represent an increase in the frequency of transit service along the Highway 99 Corridor. To address JWN concerns, the EmX Alternative would be routed along 6th and 7th Street and no infrastructure improvements are proposed along 11th and 13th Street as part of the Enhanced Corridor Alternative. Highway 99 5 ½ MILES Highway 99 Corridor 10 | Executive Summary: MovingAhead Alternatives Analysis ReportFebruary 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 Highway 99 Corridor: Comparison of AlternativesHighway 99 Corridor Enhanced Corridor Alternative This map shows the transit, bicycle, and pedestrian investments included in the Highway 99 Enhanced Corridor Alternative. The table below provides a comparison of this alternative with the No-Build and EmX Alternatives. W I L L A M E T T E N O R T H W E S T E X P R E S S W A Y H W Y 9 9 RANDY PAPE BELTLINE DOWNTOWN W 11TH AVE W 6TH AVE W 7TH AVE 105 WILLAMETTE HIGH SCHOOL BARGER C U B I T S T E C H O H O L L O W R D TA N E Y S T B E T H E L D R ROYAL AVE ELMIRA RD ROOSEVELT BLVD W 1ST AVE W 5TH AVE W 7TH PL GA R F I E L D S T CH A M B E R S S T W 13TH AVE W I L L A M E T T E S T Bike/ped bridge to Trainsong Park Dedicated Bus Turn Lane at Barger Drive on Hwy 99 One Way Business Access and Transit Lane Business Access and Transit Lane Existing 1/4 1/2 3/401 Mile N Dedicated Transit Lane Business Access & Transit Lane Roadway Improvements No Roadway Changes Existing EmX Line New or Improved Stop Existing Stop Bicycling improvements Enhanced Pedestrian Crossing Bicycling Walking Driving & Riding MAP LEGEND 1 2 3 3 2 1 1 Mitigation measures would be used to avoid or reduce impacts Supports Project Criteria Does not Support Project Criteria Jobs Population Existing Jobs & Population Served 15,000 15,000 29,000 34,000 34,000 50,000 Support Development and Redevelopment (1-5 rating) Number of Medium and Large Trees Impacted Number/Acreage of Acquisitions Potential Property Displacements Parking Impacts: On-Street/O-Street (number of spaces) Property & Development Impacts 0 14 40 0/0 44/1.3 38/1.6 0 0 0 0/0 0/50 0/53 New Bike/Ped Access and Safety Improvements (1-5 rating) Bicycling & Walking Cost Capital Cost EmXNo-Build EnhancedCorridor $0.0M $38.0M -$0.1M $2.8M$0.0MSystemwide Annual Operating Cost (Change from No-Build) Systemwide Annual Ridership Increase (Compared to No-Build) Transit Performance 0 min 10 min 12 min 0 111,000 267,000 In-Vehicle Transit Travel Time Savings $67.0M Highway 99 Corridor | 11February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 W I L L A M E T T E N O R T H W E S T E X P R E S S W A Y H W Y 9 9 RANDY PAPE BELTLINE DOWNTOWN W 11TH AVE W 6TH AVE W 7TH AVE 105 WILLAMETTE HIGH SCHOOL BARGER C U B I T S T EC H O H O L L O W R D TA N E Y S T B E T H E L D R ROYAL AVE ELMIRA RD ROOSEVELT BLVD W 1ST AVE W 5TH AVE W 7TH PL GA R F I E L D S T C H A M B E R S S T W 13TH AVE WI L L A M E T T E S T Bike/ped bridge to Trainsong Park Dedicated Bus Turn Lane at Barger Drive on Hwy 99 One Way Business Access and Transit Lane Business Access and Transit Lane Existing 1/4 1/2 3/40 1 Mile N Dedicated Transit Lane Business Access & Transit Lane Roadway Improvements No Roadway Changes Existing EmX Line New or Improved Stop Existing Stop Bicycling improvements Enhanced Pedestrian Crossing Bicycling Walking Driving & Riding MAP LEGEND 1 2 3 3 2 1 Enhanced Corridor Alternative Highway 99 Corridor These maps show the transit, bicycle, and pedestrian investments included in the Highway 99 build alternatives. 12 | Executive Summary: MovingAhead Alternatives Analysis ReportFebruary 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 EmX Alternative N O R T H W E S T E X P R E S S W A Y H W Y 9 9 RANDY PAPE BELTLINE DOWNTOWN W 11TH AVE W 6TH AVE W 7TH AVE WILLAMETTE HIGH SCHOOL BARGER C U B I T S T EC H O H O L L O W R D TA N E Y S T B E T H E L D R ROYAL AVE ELMIRA RD ROOSEVELT BLVD W 1ST AVE W 5TH AVE W 7TH PL GA R F I E L D S T C H A M B E R S S T WI L L A M E T T E S T Buered bike lane Bike/ped bridge to Trainsong Park Business Access and Transit Lane Existing Roadway Improvements on Highway 99 One Way Business Access and Transit Lane Dedicated Bus Turn Lane at Barger Drive on Hwy 99 1/4 1/2 3/40 1 Mile N Dedicated Transit Lane Business Access & Transit Lane Roadway Improvements No Roadway Changes Existing EmX Line New or Improved Station Existing Station Bicycling improvements Enhanced Pedestrian Crossing Bicycling Walking Driving & Riding MAP LEGEND 1 2 3 3 4 4 2 1 Highway 99 Corridor | 13February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 The River Road Corridor begins at the Eugene Station and overlaps with EmX West, travels through downtown and the Whiteaker Neighborhood, and then north to the Santa Clara Community Transit Center (southeast of the intersection of Hunsaker Lane and River Road). Overview Of the two build alternatives, the EmX Alternative o ers the greatest beneﬁ t to bicycle and pedestrian connectivity and safety, as well as the most improved transit service frequency because of repurposed travel lanes to Business Access and Transit (BAT) lanes. The Enhanced Corridor Alternative also provides transit beneﬁ ts and improvement to bicycle and pedestrian facilities, but to a lesser extent than the EmX Alternative, and would result in a smaller increase in transit ridership. The No-Build Alternative avoids impacts (including property acquisitions, o -street parking impacts, and potential tree removal) and costs, but does not provide the same level of beneﬁ ts compared to the Enhanced Corridor and EmX Alternatives. What We Heard • Dedicated transit and cycling lanes are needed • Reduce the speed limit on River Road • Beltline interchange is a particular area of concern • Consider safety of all road users in design for River Road • Avoid tree removal with any transit option • EmX option 2 [Business Access and Transit Lanes] is preferred because of turn lane in the middle • There are bus stops on both sides of River Road near Briarcli but no crosswalks to get across; a crosswalk is critical here Addressing Community Concerns The build alternatives would increase transit frequency while providing new investments in bicycle and pedestrian connectivity and safety. Both build alternatives aimed to work within the existing right of way where feasible, to preserve trees along the corridor as much as possible. River Road 5 MILESRiver Road Corridor 14 | Executive Summary: MovingAhead Alternatives Analysis ReportFebruary 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 River Road Corridor: Comparison of AlternativesRiver Road Corridor Enhanced Corridor Alternative 105 W I L L A M E T T E R I V E R RANDY PAPE BELTLINE R I V E R R D IRVING RDHUNSAKER N. EUGENE HIGH SCHOOL DIVISION SILVER LN KOURT DR MAXWELL RD HOWARD AVE LINDNER LN HORN LN HILLIARD LN ELKAY DR PARK AVE KNOOP LN HANSEN LN RIVER AVE N O R T H W E S T E X P R E S S W A Y W 11TH AVE W2ND A V E E 6TH AVE E 7TH AVE B L A I R R D DOWNTOWN H W Y 9 9 N W 6TH AVE W 7TH AVE E 11TH AVE DE L T A H I G H W A Y Business Access and Transit Lane with Intersection Queue Jump1 1 1/4 1/2 3/401 Mile N Dedicated Transit Lane Business Access & Transit Lane Roadway Improvements No Roadway Changes Existing EmX Line New or Improved Stop Existing Stop Bicycling improvements Enhanced Pedestrian Crossing Bicycling Walking Driving & Riding MAP LEGEND 1 19,000 19,000 28,000 35,000 35,000 44,000 0 13 132 0/0 5/1.3 40/2.2 0 4 6 0/0 0/2 0/31 This map shows the transit, bicycle, and pedestrian investments included in the River Road Enhanced Corridor Alternative. The table below provides a comparison of this alternative with the No-Build and EmX Alternatives. EmXNo-Build EnhancedCorridor $0.0M $24.0M $78.0M -$0.6M $2.0M$0.0M 0 min 5 min 8 min 0 33,000 246,000 1 Mitigation measures would be used to avoid or reduce impacts Supports Project Criteria Does not Support Project Criteria Jobs Population Existing Jobs & Population Served Support Development and Redevelopment (1-5 rating) Number of Medium and Large Trees Impacted Number/Acreage of Acquisitions Potential Property Displacements Parking Impacts: On-Street/O-Street (number of spaces) Property & Development Impacts New Bike/Ped Access and Safety Improvements (1-5 rating) Bicycling & Walking Cost Capital Cost Systemwide Annual Operating Cost (Change from No-Build) Systemwide Annual Ridership Increase (Compared to No-Build) Transit Performance In-Vehicle Transit Travel Time Savings River Road Corridor | 15February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 105 W I L L A M E T T E R I V E R RANDY PAPE BELTLINE R I V E R R D IRVING RD HUNSAKER N. EUGENE HIGH SCHOOL DIVISION SILVER LN KOURT DR MAXWELL RD HOWARD AVE LINDNER LN HORN LN HILLIARD LN ELKAY DR PARK AVE KNOOP LN HANSEN LN RIVER AVE N O R T H W E S T E X P R E S S W A Y W 11TH AVE W2ND A V E E 6TH AVE E 7TH AVE B L A I R R D DOWNTOWN H W Y 9 9 N W 6TH AVE W 7TH AVE E 11TH AVE DE L T A H I G H W A Y Business Access and Transit Lane with Intersection Queue Jump1 1 1/4 1/2 3/40 1 Mile N Dedicated Transit Lane Business Access & Transit Lane Roadway Improvements No Roadway Changes Existing EmX Line New or Improved Stop Existing Stop Bicycling improvements Enhanced Pedestrian Crossing Bicycling Walking Driving & Riding MAP LEGEND 1 Enhanced Corridor Alternative River Road Corridor These maps show the transit, bicycle, and pedestrian investments included in the River Road build alternatives. 16 | Executive Summary: MovingAhead Alternatives Analysis ReportFebruary 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 EmX Alternative 105 W I L L A M E T T E R I V E R RANDY PAPE BELTLINE R I V E R R D IRVING RD N. EUGENE HIGH SCHOOL SILVER LN KOURT DR MAXWELL RD HOWARD AVE LINDNER LN HORN LN HILLIARD LN ELKAY DR PARK AVE RIVER AVE H W Y 9 9 N W 2ND AVE B L A I R R D DOWNTOWN KNOOP LN HANSEN LN N O R T H W E S T E X P R E S S W A Y W 11TH AVE E 6TH AVE E 7TH AVE W 6TH AVE W 7TH AVE E 11TH AVE DE L T A H I G H W A Y HUNSAKER DIVISION Shared use path Protected bike lane Center Dedicated Transit Lanes at Beltline Business Access & Transit Lanes 1/4 1/2 3/40 1 Mile N Dedicated Transit Lane Business Access & Transit Lane Roadway Improvements No Roadway Changes Existing EmX Line New or Improved Station Existing Station Bicycling improvements Enhanced Pedestrian Crossing Bicycling Walking Driving & Riding MAP LEGEND 1 1 2 2 River Road Corridor | 17February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 The 30th Avenue to LCC Corridor begins at Eugene Station and travels south along Pearl Street to Amazon Parkway, then on E. 30th Avenue to the LCC Station. The return trip travels on Oak Street (inbound). Overview Of the two build alternatives, the EmX Alternative o ers the greatest potential ridership increase as well as the most bicycle and pedestrian connectivity and safety improvements. The Enhanced Corridor Alternative would provide a lower level of bicycle and pedestrian investment, and fewer transit beneﬁ ts, including a possible reduction in transit ridership due to the elimination of service on Harris Street and a direct transit connection between LCC and the University of Oregon. The No-Build Alternative, which would retain existing service, avoids impacts (including property acquisitions, o -street and on-street parking impacts, and potential tree removal) and costs, and o ers transit travel times that are similar to the two build alternatives. Additionally, ridership for the No-Build Alternative is better than estimated ridership for the Enhanced Corridor Alternative due to the assumed elimination of Route 81 service. What We Heard • Needs bigger pedestrian improvements from 30th to LCC campus • Needs evening and weekend bus service to LCC for attending events and meetings • Oak and Pearl should be for buses along 30th/ LCC and High Street should be a cycle track • Corridor would complement changes occurring in the South Willamette area • Crossings along 30th are di cult • Need more details about how bicycles will be accommodated Addressing Community Concerns The build alternatives both provide new investments in bicycle and pedestrian connectivity and safety. Either of the build alternatives or the No-Build (which retains existing service) could extend service hours in the future. 30th Ave. to LCC 5 MILES 30th Avenue (Downtown) to LCC Corridor 18 | Executive Summary: MovingAhead Alternatives Analysis ReportFebruary 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 30th Avenue to LCC Corridor: Comparison of AlternativesThis map shows the transit, bicycle, and pedestrian investments included in the 30th Avenue to LCC Enhanced Corridor Alternative. The table below provides a comparison of this alternative with the No-Build and EmX Alternatives.30th Avenue to LCC Corridor Enhanced Corridor Alternative 105 5 DOWNTOWN UNIVERSITYOF OREGON WILLAMETTE RIV E R W 6TH AVE W 7TH AVE W 11TH AVE S. EUGENE HIGH SCHOOL W 13TH AVE W 18TH AVE W 20TH AVE W 27TH AVE W 29TH AVE E 24TH AVE H I L L Y A R D S T E 30TH AVE PE A R L S T OA K S T LANE COMMUNITY COLLEGE Striped bike lane Buered bike laneBuered bike lane 1/4 1/2 3/401 Mile N Dedicated Transit Lane Business Access & Transit Lane Roadway Improvements No Roadway Changes Existing EmX Line New or Improved Stop Existing Stop Bicycling improvements Enhanced Pedestrian Crossing Bicycling Walking Driving & Riding MAP LEGEND Roadway Improvements: Oak and Pearl Streets1 1 15,000 15,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 45,000 0 58 102 0/0 13/0.4 20/0.5 0 0 0 0/0 69/0 140/16 EmXNo-Build EnhancedCorridor $0.0M $21.0M $53.0M -$0.5M $0.5M$0.0M 0 min 1 min 2 min 0 -30,000 198,000 1 Mitigation measures would be used to avoid or reduce impacts Supports Project Criteria Does not Support Project Criteria Jobs Population Existing Jobs & Population Served Support Development and Redevelopment (1-5 rating) Number of Medium and Large Trees Impacted Number/Acreage of Acquisitions Potential Property Displacements Parking Impacts: On-Street/O-Street (number of spaces) Property & Development Impacts New Bike/Ped Access and Safety Improvements (1-5 rating) Bicycling & Walking Cost Capital Cost Systemwide Annual Operating Cost (Change from No-Build) Systemwide Annual Ridership Increase (Compared to No-Build) Transit Performance In-Vehicle Transit Travel Time Savings 30th Avenue to LCC Corridor | 19February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 105 5 DOWNT OWN UNIVERSITYOF OREGON W I L L A M E T T E RIV E R W 6TH AVE W 7TH AVE W 11TH AVE S. EUGENE HIGH SCHOOL AMAZONAMAZONAMAZONAMAZONAMAZONAMAZONAMAZONAMAZONAMAZONAMAZONAMAZONPARKPARKPARKPARKPARKPARKPARKPARKPARKPARKPARK W 13TH AVE W 18TH AVE W 20TH AVE W 27TH AVE W 29TH AVE E 24TH AVE H I L L Y A R D S T E 30TH AVE P E A R L S T OA K S T LANE COMMUNITY COLLEGE Striped bike lane Buered bike laneBuered bike lane 1/4 1/2 3/40 1 Mile N Dedicated Transit Lane Business Access & Transit Lane Roadway Improvements No Roadway Changes Existing EmX Line New or Improved Stop Existing Stop Bicycling improvements Enhanced Pedestrian Crossing Bicycling Walking Driving & Riding MAP LEGEND Roadway Improvements: Oak and Pearl Streets1 1 Enhanced Corridor Alternative 30th Avenue to LCC Corridor These maps show the transit, bicycle, and pedestrian investments included in the 30th Avenue to LCC Corridor build alternatives. 20 | Executive Summary: MovingAhead Alternatives Analysis ReportFebruary 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 EmX Alternative 105 5 DOWNTO WN LANE COMMUNITY COLLEGE UNIVERSITYOF OREGON W I L L A M E T T E RIV E R W 6TH AVE W 7TH AVE W 11TH AVE S. EUGENE HIGH SCHOOL AMAZONAMAZONAMAZONAMAZONAMAZONAMAZONAMAZONAMAZONAMAZONAMAZONAMAZONPARKPARKPARKPARKPARKPARKPARKPARKPARKPARKPARK W 13TH AVE W 18TH AVE W 20TH AVE W 27TH AVE W 29TH AVE E 24TH AVE H I L L Y A R D S T E 30TH AVE P E A R L S T H I G H S T OA K S T Striped bike lane Two-way cycle track 1/4 1/2 3/40 1 Mile N Dedicated Transit Lane Business Access & Transit Lane Roadway Improvements No Roadway Changes Existing EmX Line New or Improved Station Existing Station Bicycling improvements Enhanced Pedestrian Crossing Bicycling Walking Driving & Riding MAP LEGEND Business Access and Transit Lane: Pearl Street Business Access and Transit Lane: Oak Street 1 2 12 30th Avenue to LCC Corridor | 21February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 The Coburg Road Corridor begins at the Eugene Station and continues to Coburg Road using the Ferry Street Bridge. The corridor continues north on Coburg Road to Crescent Avenue, east on Crescent Avenue, south on Shadow View Drive, east on Chad Drive to Old Coburg Road, and south on N. Game Farm Road and Gateway Street to the existing Gateway Station at the Gateway Mall. Although service extends from N. Game Farm Road to the Gateway Station, capital investments proposed as part of the MovingAhead project would terminate at Interstate 5 (I-5). Overview Although the two build alternatives are rated more favorably than the No-Build Alternative, the EmX Alternative in this corridor has the highest capital cost of all the corridor alternatives considered and would require the most property acquisition. The Enhanced Corridor Alternative has a lower cost, less impact, and an equivalent improvement in transit travel time than the EmX Alternative, but has lower projected ridership. The No-Build Alternative avoids cost and impacts (including property acquisitions, o -street and on- street parking impacts, and potential tree removal). What We Heard • The VA clinic and all the new development at Crescent and further north have limited bus service and bikeway options. • Auto access to businesses must be maintained • Coburg is scary with fast moving tra c • Bicycle and pedestrian crossings are di cult • Bicycling facilities separated from tra c are important • The corridor is important for autos, given the nature of development and connection to freeways Addressing Community Concerns The build alternatives provide investments in bicycle and pedestrian connectivity and safety, as well as improved transit service and connections to areas north of Beltline. Additionally, questions came up about how business impacts would be minimized. Both build options propose infrastructure investments that stay within the existing right of way as much as possible. Coburg Road 6 ½ MILES Coburg Road Corridor 22 | Executive Summary: MovingAhead Alternatives Analysis ReportFebruary 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 Coburg Road Corridor: Comparison of AlternativesThis map shows the transit, bicycle, and pedestrian investments included in the Coburg Road Enhanced Corridor Alternative. The table below provides a comparison of this alternative with the No-Build and EmX Alternatives.Coburg Road Corridor Enhanced Corridor Alternative 25,000 25,000 36,000 41,000 41,000 50,000 0 9 149 0/0 47/1 73/4 0 0 2 0/0 0/67 7/128 105 5 RANDY PAPE BELTLINE CRESCENT AVE N G A M E F A R M R D C OBURG RD WILLAKENZIE RD BAILEY LN HARLOW RD MARTIN LUTHER KING JR BLVD W 6TH AVE W 7TH AVE SHELDON HIGH SCHOOL MONROEMIDDLE SCHOOL UNIVERSITYOF OREGON PE A R L S T OL I V E S T OA K S T WILLAMETTE RIV E RW 11TH AVE M c K E N Z IE RIVER 1/4 1/2 3/401 Mile N Dedicated Transit Lane Business Access & Transit Lane Roadway Improvements No Roadway Changes Existing EmX Line New or Improved Stop Existing Stop Bicycling improvements Enhanced Pedestrian Crossing Bicycling Walking Driving & Riding MAP LEGEND Business Access and Transit Lanes at I-105 Intersection with Queue Jump Existing 1 1 Service continues into Springﬁeld without infrastructure investments EmXNo-Build EnhancedCorridor $0.0M $41.0M $113.0M $0.0M $1.8M$0.0M 0 min 5 min 5 min 0 63,000 258,000 1 Mitigation measures would be used to avoid or reduce impacts Supports Project Criteria Does not Support Project Criteria Jobs Population Existing Jobs & Population Served Support Development and Redevelopment (1-5 rating) Number of Medium and Large Trees Impacted Number/Acreage of Acquisitions Potential Property Displacements Parking Impacts: On-Street/O-Street (number of spaces) Property & Development Impacts New Bike/Ped Access and Safety Improvements (1-5 rating) Bicycling & Walking Cost Capital Cost Systemwide Annual Operating Cost (Change from No-Build) Systemwide Annual Ridership Increase (Compared to No-Build) Transit Performance In-Vehicle Transit Travel Time Savings Lorem ipsum Coburg Road Corridor | 23February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 105 5 RANDY PAPE BELTLINE CRESCENT AVE N G A M E F A R M R D C O B U R G R D WILLAKENZIE RD BAILEY LN HARLOW RD MARTIN LUTHER KING JR BLVD W 6TH AVE W 7TH AVE SHELDON HIGH SCHOOL MONROEMIDDLE SCHOOL SKINNERBUTTEPARKPARKPARKPARKPARKPARK ALTONALTONALTONBAKERBAKERBAKERPARKPARKPARK UNIVERSITYOF OREGON P E A R L S T O L I V E S T OA K S T W I L L A M E T T E RIV E RW 11TH AVE M c K E N Z IE RIVER 1/4 1/2 3/40 1 Mile N Dedicated Transit Lane Business Access & Transit Lane Roadway Improvements No Roadway Changes Existing EmX Line New or Improved Stop Existing Stop Bicycling improvements Enhanced Pedestrian Crossing Bicycling Walking Driving & Riding MAP LEGEND Business Access and Transit Lanes at I-105 Intersection with Queue Jump Existing 1 1 Service continues into Springﬁeld without infrastructure investments Enhanced Corridor Alternative Coburg Road Corridor These maps show the transit, bicycle, and pedestrian investments included in the Coburg Road build alternatives. 24 | Executive Summary: MovingAhead Alternatives Analysis ReportFebruary 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 EmX Alternative 105 5 RANDY PAPE BELTLINE CRESCENT AVE N G A M E F A R M R D C O B U R G R D WILLAKENZIE RD BAILEY LN HARLOW RD MARTIN LUTHER KING JR BLVD W 6TH AVE W 7TH AVE SHELDON HIGH SCHOOL MONROEMIDDLE SCHOOL SKINNERBUTTEPARKPARKPARKPARKPARKPARK ALTONALTONALTONBAKERBAKERBAKERPARKPARKPARK UNIVERSITYOF OREGON P E A R L S T O L I V E S T OA K S T W I L L A M E T T E R I V E R W 11TH AVE M c K E N Z IE RIVER 1/4 1/2 3/40 1 Mile N Dedicated Transit Lane Business Access & Transit Lane Roadway Improvements No Roadway Changes Existing EmX Line New or Improved Station Existing Station Bicycling improvements Enhanced Pedestrian Crossing Bicycling Walking Driving & Riding MAP LEGEND Center Dedicated Transit Lanes Under Beltline Single Dedicated Transit Lane at Intersections Business Access and Transit Lane: Downtown1 1 4 4 Service continues into Springﬁeld without infrastructure investments Exclusive Transit Lanes 2 3 2 3 3 Coburg Road Corridor | 25February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 The MLK, Jr. Boulevard Corridor begins at Eugene Station and travels through downtown Eugene and uses the Ferry Street Bridge to reach MLK, Jr. Boulevard and continues east on MLK, Jr. Boulevard past Autzen Stadium to Centennial Boulevard where it will intersect with Gateway EmX. Service will continue on Centennial Boulevard without any additional capital investments. Overview The Enhanced Corridor Alternative o ers the greatest potential ridership increase and more beneﬁ ts to bicycle and pedestrian connectivity and safety, however estimated travel time savings are relatively small compared to the No-Build Alternative. An EmX option was not considered in the MLK, Jr. Boulevard Corridor due to its shorter length and the lower return on investment potential at this time since proposed infrastructure investments currently end at the Eugene/Springﬁ eld boundary. There may be opportunities to reconsider EmX on this corridor in the future. The No-Build Alternative avoids impacts (including property acquisitions, o -street parking impacts, and potential tree removal) and cost. What We Heard • Tra c concerns are related to events at Autzen Stadium • Corridor is an essential connection to student housing, Eugene, and Springﬁ eld • Bicycle and pedestrian improvements are needed • Do not compromise Alton Baker Park to alleviate Ferry Street Bridge congestion • MLK without Springﬁ eld connection is a waste, connect the corridor to Springﬁ eld Addressing Community Concerns The build alternative provides investments in a variety of travel options that help address these needs, most notably, the inclusion of BAT lanes to provide transit priority and tra c calming. MLK, Jr. Blvd.3 MILES Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard Corridor 26 | Executive Summary: MovingAhead Alternatives Analysis ReportFebruary 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MLK, Jr. Blvd.3 MILES MLK, Jr. Boulevard Corridor: Comparison of AlternativesMLK Jr. Boulevard Corridor Enhanced Corridor Alternative No EmX alternative for this route 15,000 15,000 26,000 26,000 0 9 0/0 6/0.1 0 0 0/0 0/0 105 DOWNTOWN UNIVERSITYOF OREGON WILLAMETTE RIV E R W 6TH AVE W 7TH AVE5 W 11TH AVE MLK JR. BLVD W CENTENNIAL BLVD SPRINGFIELD OA K S T PE A R L S T COBURG RD E 8TH AVE 1/4 1/2 3/401 Mile N Dedicated Transit Lane Business Access & Transit Lane Roadway Improvements No Roadway Changes Existing EmX Line New or Improved Stop Existing Stop Bicycling improvements Enhanced Pedestrian Crossing Bicycling Walking Driving & Riding MAP LEGEND Business Access and Transit Lanes with Multi-use Path1 1 Service continues into Springﬁeld without infrastructure invesments No-Build EnhancedCorridor $0.0M $21.0M $1.1M$0.0M 0 2 min 0 186,000 This map shows the transit, bicycle, and pedestrian investments included in the Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard Enhanced Corridor Alternative. The table below provides a comparison of this alternative with the No-Build Alternative. 1 Mitigation measures would be used to avoid or reduce impacts Supports Project Criteria Does not Support Project Criteria Jobs Population Existing Jobs & Population Served Support Development and Redevelopment (1-5 rating) Number of Medium and Large Trees Impacted Number/Acreage of Acquisitions Potential Property Displacements Parking Impacts: On-Street/O-Street (number of spaces) Property & Development Impacts New Bike/Ped Access and Safety Improvements (1-5 rating) Bicycling & Walking Cost Capital Cost Systemwide Annual Operating Cost (Change from No-Build) Systemwide Annual Ridership Increase (Compared to No-Build) Transit Performance In-Vehicle Transit Travel Time Savings Martin Luther King, Jr. Corridor | 27February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 105 DOWNTOWN UNIVERSITYOF OREGON W I L L A M E T T E RIV E R W 6TH AVE W 7TH AVE 5 W 11TH AVE SKINNERBUTTEPARK ALTONALTONBAKERBAKERBAKERPARK AUTZENSTADIUM MLK JR. BLVD W CENTENNIAL BLVD SPRINGFIELD OA K S T P E A R L S T C O B U R G R D E 8TH AVE W 6TH AVEW 6TH AVEW 6TH AVE 1/4 1/2 3/40 1 Mile N Dedicated Transit Lane Business Access & Transit Lane Roadway Improvements No Roadway Changes Existing EmX Line New or Improved Stop Existing Stop Bicycling improvements Enhanced Pedestrian Crossing Bicycling Walking Driving & Riding MAP LEGEND Business Access and Transit Lanes with Multi-use Path1 1 Service continues into Springﬁeld without infrastructure invesments Enhanced Corridor Alternative Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Corridor This map shows the transit, bicycle, and pedestrian investments included in the MLK, Jr. Blvd. build alternative. 28 | Executive Summary: MovingAhead Alternatives Analysis ReportFebruary 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 Funding Plan As part of the MovingAhead project, a funding plan for implementation of the corridor investments will be developed. The plan will consider potential funding options and the timing of corridor investments, with the goal of using local dollars to leverage state and federal funding to provide the most e cient overall funding strategy. Given the multiple revenue sources and the evolving nature of potential project funding, the funding plan must be nimble, providing ﬂ exibility to take advantage of funding opportunities as they arise. An advantage of the MovingAhead approach of evaluating multimodal transportation investments across multiple corridors at once is that the funding plan can consider creative implementation approaches based upon available funding sources, such as: • Combing two corridors into a single funded project • Implementing some initial, lower level investments, such as transit signal priority or sidewalk inﬁ ll, across all corridors at one time • Blending a combination of mode-speciﬁ c funding into an overall funding package The funding plan will consider both capital costs and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs. Capital costs are one-time investments needed to construct the corridor infrastructure, such as project design and engineering, property acquisition, vehicle purchases, and construction. O&M costs include ongoing operation of the service, such as operator wages, vehicle fuel and maintenance, administrative and supervisory costs, and general upkeep of the infrastructure investments. Capital Costs There are many potential sources for funding the implementation of corridor investments. Federal funding may be available to pay for up to 50% of project costs, with the most promising federal funding coming from the Federal Transit Administration’s Small Starts Program. While the EmX alternatives clearly qualify for that program, the Enhanced Corridor alternatives may or may not qualify, depending on how those alternatives are developed and deﬁ ned. State and other federal funding may be available to assist with transit, bicycle, and pedestrian investments. Possible Capital Funding Sources: • FTA Small Starts • FTA Formula Funding • Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) grants (formerly called TIGER grants) • State Lottery Funds • ConnectOregon (for bicycle and pedestrian improvements) • All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS) (for safety improvements) Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs O&M costs are funded through LTD’s annual budget. LTD maintains a Long-Range Financial Plan that projects O&M revenues and costs for a rolling 10 year period. That plan will be used to evaluate the system-wide O&M funding needs along with how the MovingAhead investments ﬁ t into the overall funding picture. Gaps in O&M funding can be addressed through changes in the corridor service levels, the timing of the implementation of the new service, or by identifying additional funding. It should be noted that most of the Enhanced Corridor Alternatives could result in an overall decrease in O&M costs. Martin Luther King, Jr. Corridor | 29February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 Next Steps Investment Packages The most promising corridor options will be combined into a full set of future system improvements for near-term (10 year) investment and implementation based on which options best meet the project goals and garner the community’s support. These Investment “Packages”, which will include combinations of No-Build, Enhanced Corridor, and EmX alternatives, will be evaluated using criteria that reﬂ ect the costs and beneﬁ ts of the packages as a whole. A key consideration will be the capacity to fund the capital investment (implementation) and the ongoing operations and maintenance (O&M) costs associated with each package. Decision Making The LTD Board of Directors and Eugene City Council will review the technical ﬁ ndings included in the Alternatives Analysis report, the evaluation of the Investment Packages, and input from the community before making a decision on a preferred package of multimodal transportation investments for all ﬁ ve corridors. That package of investments will inform how we prioritize projects for near-term funding, design and construction. Get involved! Your feedback will help build a better transportation future. Visit the project website to ﬁ nd the latest project information, sign up for email updates, learn about upcoming events, and submit comments. www.MovingAhead.org Enhanced Corridor EmX Package A Package B Package C Cost Capital Cost Systemwide Annual Operating Cost(Change from No-Build) $148M -$0.1M $335M $8.2M $274M $4.3M $210M $5.9M $172M $2.4M In-Vehicle Transit TravelTime Improvement Systemwide Annual Ridership Increase(Compared to No-Build) Transit Performance -23 min 386,000 -29 min 1,318,000 -26 min 757,000 -27 min 771,000 -22 min 651,000 New Bike/Ped Access and SafetyImprovements (1-5 rating) Bicycling & Walking Support Development andRedevelopment (1-5 rating) Number of Medium and Large Trees Impacted Number/Acreage of Acquisitions Potential Property Displacements1 Parking Impacts: On-Street/O-Street(number of spaces) Development Impacts 103 115/4.1 4 69/119 432 177/8.4 8 147/229 362 176/8 8 76/209 190 131/4.9 6 0/152 248 104/4 6 140/97 Percent of Investment in Corridors with HigherLevel of Environmental Justice Population 56%50%50%79%68% 30th Ave/LCC MLK Jr. Blvd Coburg Rd River Rd Hwy 99 Hwy 99 30th Ave/LCC MLK Jr. Blvd Coburg Rd River Rd Hwy 99 30th Ave/LCC MLK Jr. Blvd River Rd Coburg Rd River Rd 30th Ave/LCC MLK Jr. Blvd Hwy 99 Coburg Rd 30th Ave/LCC MLK Jr. Blvd River Rd Coburg RdHwy 99 Preliminary Packages 1 Mitigation measures would be used to avoid or reduce impacts Supports Project Criteria Does not Support Project Criteria Subject to change based on public input — No-Build — Enhanced Corridor — EmX Enhanced Corridor EmX Package A Package B Package C Cost Capital Cost Systemwide Annual Operating Cost(Change from No-Build) $148M -$0.1M $335M $8.2M $274M $4.3M $210M $5.9M $172M $2.4M In-Vehicle Transit TravelTime Improvement Systemwide Annual Ridership Increase(Compared to No-Build) Transit Performance -23 min 386,000 -29 min 1,318,000 -26 min 757,000 -27 min 771,000 -22 min 651,000 New Bike/Ped Access and SafetyImprovements (1-5 rating) Bicycling & Walking Support Development andRedevelopment (1-5 rating) Number of Medium and Large Trees Impacted Number/Acreage of Acquisitions Potential Property Displacements1 Parking Impacts: On-Street/O-Street(number of spaces) Development Impacts 103 115/4.1 4 69/119 432 177/8.4 8 147/229 362 176/8 8 76/209 190 131/4.9 6 0/152 248 104/4 6 140/97 Percent of Investment in Corridors with HigherLevel of Environmental Justice Population 56%50%50%79%68% 30th Ave/LCC MLK Jr. Blvd Coburg Rd River Rd Hwy 99 Hwy 99 30th Ave/LCC MLK Jr. Blvd Coburg Rd River Rd Hwy 99 30th Ave/LCC MLK Jr. Blvd River Rd Coburg Rd River Rd 30th Ave/LCC MLK Jr. Blvd Hwy 99 Coburg Rd 30th Ave/LCC MLK Jr. Blvd River Rd Coburg RdHwy 99 Preliminary Packages 1 Mitigation measures would be used to avoid or reduce impacts Supports Project Criteria Does not Support Project Criteria Subject to change based on public input — No-Build — Enhanced Corridor — EmX Enhanced Corridor EmX Package A Package B Package C Cost Capital Cost Systemwide Annual Operating Cost(Change from No-Build) $148M -$0.1M $335M $8.2M $274M $4.3M $210M $5.9M $172M $2.4M In-Vehicle Transit TravelTime Improvement Systemwide Annual Ridership Increase(Compared to No-Build) Transit Performance -23 min 386,000 -29 min 1,318,000 -26 min 757,000 -27 min 771,000 -22 min 651,000 New Bike/Ped Access and SafetyImprovements (1-5 rating) Bicycling & Walking Support Development andRedevelopment (1-5 rating) Number of Medium and Large Trees Impacted Number/Acreage of Acquisitions Potential Property Displacements1 Parking Impacts: On-Street/O-Street(number of spaces) Development Impacts 103 115/4.1 4 69/119 432 177/8.4 8 147/229 362 176/8 8 76/209 190 131/4.9 6 0/152 248 104/4 6 140/97 Percent of Investment in Corridors with HigherLevel of Environmental Justice Population 56%50%50%79%68% 30th Ave/LCC MLK Jr. Blvd Coburg Rd River Rd Hwy 99 Hwy 99 30th Ave/LCC MLK Jr. Blvd Coburg Rd River Rd Hwy 99 30th Ave/LCC MLK Jr. Blvd River Rd Coburg Rd River Rd 30th Ave/LCC MLK Jr. Blvd Hwy 99 Coburg Rd 30th Ave/LCC MLK Jr. Blvd River Rd Coburg RdHwy 99 Preliminary Packages 1 Mitigation measures would be used to avoid or reduce impacts Supports Project Criteria Does not Support Project Criteria Subject to change based on public input — No-Build — Enhanced Corridor — EmX Enhanced Corridor EmX Package A Package B Package C Cost Capital Cost Systemwide Annual Operating Cost(Change from No-Build) $148M -$0.1M $335M $8.2M $274M $4.3M $210M $5.9M $172M $2.4M In-Vehicle Transit TravelTime Improvement Systemwide Annual Ridership Increase(Compared to No-Build) Transit Performance -23 min 386,000 -29 min 1,318,000 -26 min 757,000 -27 min 771,000 -22 min 651,000 New Bike/Ped Access and SafetyImprovements (1-5 rating) Bicycling & Walking Support Development andRedevelopment (1-5 rating) Number of Medium and Large Trees Impacted Number/Acreage of Acquisitions Potential Property Displacements1 Parking Impacts: On-Street/O-Street(number of spaces) Development Impacts 103 115/4.1 4 69/119 432 177/8.4 8 147/229 362 176/8 8 76/209 190 131/4.9 6 0/152 248 104/4 6 140/97 Percent of Investment in Corridors with HigherLevel of Environmental Justice Population 56%50%50%79%68% 30th Ave/LCC MLK Jr. Blvd Coburg Rd River Rd Hwy 99 Hwy 99 30th Ave/LCC MLK Jr. Blvd Coburg Rd River Rd Hwy 99 30th Ave/LCC MLK Jr. Blvd River Rd Coburg Rd River Rd 30th Ave/LCC MLK Jr. Blvd Hwy 99 Coburg Rd 30th Ave/LCC MLK Jr. Blvd River Rd Coburg RdHwy 99 Preliminary Packages 1 Mitigation measures would be used to avoid or reduce impacts Supports Project Criteria Does not Support Project Criteria Subject to change based on public input — No-Build — Enhanced Corridor — EmX February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead Outreach Summary Analys is and S ummary of F eedback from Summ er and F all 2018 O utreach A ctivities Prepared For City of Eugene Lane Transit District Prepared By JLA Public Involvement December 2018 February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 1 Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Summary of Activities ................................................................................................................................... 3 Open House Feedback .................................................................................................................................. 6 Listening Session Feedback ......................................................................................................................... 17 General Project Comments ......................................................................................................................... 18 Appendix 1: Communication Materials ...................................................................................................... 20 Appendix 2: Open House Demographics .................................................................................................... 23 Appendix 3: All Open House Comments ..................................................................................................... 27 Appendix 4: All Listening Session Comments ............................................................................................. 43 Appendix 5: All General Comments ............................................................................................................ 48 Appendix 6: Letters from Cowboy’s Savannah LLC ..................................................................................... 59 February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 2 Executive Summary With the launch of the MovingAhead Alternatives Analysis Report in Fall 2018, the project team implemented a robust outreach and engagement program to involve community members in the process of developing possible investment packages for MovingAhead based upon community support and technical evaluation. Using a variety of outreach activities including in-person and online open houses, listening sessions, tabling activities, and more, the project team was able to gain specific feedback from approximately 500 people. Feedback was focused on understanding the investment preferences for each corridor (No- Build, EmX, or Enhanced Corridor) and the importance of various criteria for evaluating future investment package options. A number of key themes emerged from this feedback: Investment Preferences Strong support for better transit improvements. Overall, comments that voiced support for MovingAhead transit improvements far outweighed comments that were critical of the project. Additionally, the build alternatives (Enhanced Corridor and EmX transit service) consistently rated higher than the No-Build alternatives. In the comments as well as in the feedback exercises, increasing ridership emerged as a high priority, though suggestions for how to achieve this were highly varied – bus shelter amenities, bus-only lanes, more comfortable buses, and more frequent service among them. Many people also voiced support for additional service, outside the five MovingAhead corridors. Clearest support for EmX on River Road. While community members generally showed support for the build alternatives over the No-Build alternatives, there was less clarity in preferences for Enhanced Corridor compared to EmX alternatives. The exception was the River Road Corridor. In the in-person open houses, EmX was generally favored over Enhanced Corridor options, but the preference for EmX was most pronounced on River Road. Online open house participants indicated a slight preference for Enhanced Corridor on all other corridors, except that they showed a slight preference for EmX on River Road. Evaluation Criteria Bike and pedestrian improvements are highly valued. Biking and walking improvements were rated as the most important criteria for evaluating MovingAhead corridor alternatives and were also a common theme in general comments. Comments related to biking and walking often indicated a desire to use these options more, but cited safety or perceived safety issues in existing infrastructure as the main barrier to use. Operating Cost and traffic are concerns. Two of the most common concerns heard about the MovingAhead project were about cost and traffic congestion. While most people did not consider operating cost a top priority for the evaluation criteria, those that did feel it was important often ranked it as the most important criteria, suggesting a passionate minority around this issue. A number of comments about cost concerns referenced dissatisfaction with the return on investment from existing EmX lines. February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 3 Traffic was a common topic in the open-ended comments. These comments often voiced concern that transit, bike, and pedestrian improvements would make driving slower and more congested around these corridors. Summary of Activities The City of Eugene and Lane Transit District (LTD) are working with regional partners on a major transportation investment plan called MovingAhead. During the early stages of this project, the community helped identify the five key corridors to be studied further and weighed in on transportation solutions for each. The technical evaluation of these five corridors followed, culminating in the publication of the Alternatives Analysis Report in September 2018. In the months leading up to and following the publication of the Alternatives Analysis Report, the project team undertook a robust outreach and engagement program. The purpose of this effort was to: - Raise awareness about the project and inform people about the process and timeline. - Help people understand the key findings from the Alternatives Analysis. - Incorporate community feedback into the criteria for assessing the various investment package options. - Gather feedback about the initial investment options for each of the five corridors. This document summarizes the outcomes of the outreach activities and highlights key themes and trends from the feedback compiled from these efforts. General Communication Efforts After initial public outreach in 2016, the project team incorporated feedback into a year-long technical evaluation process. Outreach efforts restarted in April 2018 as the project team was finalizing the technical work and preparing to publish the Alternatives Analysis Report in September 2018. Early activities were focused on providing general information about the project and encouraging people to sign up for the email list to learn about future project activities. After the release of the Alternatives Analysis in September, efforts were aimed at providing information about the open house events and other opportunities for learning about the project and weighing-in on the investment options being considered. The project team used a variety of communication channels to raise awareness about the project): • Emails. Emails were used as a primary method of informing people about MovingAhead activities. Nine emails were sent from April to October 2018. The initial email was sent to over 800 recipients. Open rates for the emails hovered around 30% with approximately 200 – 300 people opening and engaging with the content per email. The email list grew from 816 to 896 people over that time period. • Website. The MovingAhead website acted as a hub for project information, including information about upcoming events and important project documents. There were 15,465 visits to the website between January and November 2018, with a spike in visits during the engagement period of September and October. February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 4 • Letters to property owners and residents. Letters were mailed to 7,076 property owners, businesses and residents located directly on each of the five corridors providing them with general project information and inviting them to attend an open house or contact a project team member for a one-on-one meeting. • Letters to potentially impacted property owners. Letters were sent to 241 potentially impacted property owners inviting them to meet with MovingAhead staff to discuss potential impacts and concerns they had. The project team hosted meetings or phone conversations with 21 people in response to these letters. • Social Media. The project team leveraged Facebook and Twitter accounts from LTD and the City of Eugene to promote the MovingAhead activities. • Postcard. A postcard was used to promote the open house events. It was sent to all addresses within a half-mile radius of each of the corridors. The project team mailed out 45,304 postcards. • Posters. The project team developed a poster that provided basic information about the project and directed people to the website. It was placed at key locations throughout the community. • Direct Outreach. The project team directly contacted neighborhood leaders to ensure they were engaged in the project. • Tabling and community briefings. To generate project awareness and to promote the project, the project team hosted information tables at a variety of community events throughout the summer. The project team also gave briefings and hosted discussions about the project with community groups. Members from the project team attended 17 events and briefings during the summer 2018 period. See Appendix 1 for examples of communications materials. Engagement Activities After the publication of the Alternatives Analysis Report, the project team developed a suite of engagement opportunities, aimed at gathering input about each of the corridor alternatives and to better understand what criteria was most important for evaluating the investment packages. Open House Events Four in-person open house events were held: • Sept. 24: 30th Ave to LCC Corridor Open House at the Eugene Public Library • Sept. 25: River Road Corridor Open House at Kelly Middle School • Sept. 26: Coburg Road and MLK Blvd. Corridors Open House at Monroe Middle School • Sept. 27: Highway 99 Corridor Open House at Willamette High School Participants explore content at the 30th Avenue to LCC open house at the Downtown Eugene Public Library. February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 5 The events were spread out geographically to correspond to the neighborhoods closest to the five key corridors that were being explored for investment as part of MovingAhead. The two-hour, drop-in style events allowed community members to explore five different stations where they could learn about different aspects of the project, talk with project staff, and provide feedback: 1. Background. An overview of the project including history, goals, and information on what an alternatives analysis is. 2. Evaluation Criteria. An explanation of each criteria used to evaluate the different investment options. Feedback Opportunity: Participants were given five dots and asked to place them next to the five evaluation criteria they believe are most important. 3. Investment Options. Information about the three different alternatives being considered for each of the corridors: No-Build, Enhanced Corridor, and EmX. 4. Corridors. An overview of the different options for each of the five corridors. This included maps of the routes and features of each option along with a matrix outlining how each option performed related to the evaluation criteria. Feedback Opportunity: Participants were able to share how they felt about the different options for each corridor on a five-point scale, from 5-works well to 1-serious concerns. They could also choose “Not sure.” 5. Next Steps. A timeline showing where we are in the process for MovingAhead and what the next steps include. 6. Comment Area. Participants were able to collect a variety of takeaway materials and leave comments as well as learn how they could comment more specifically on the Alternatives Analysis Report. Feedback Opportunity: Participants could fill out comment forms that had the same questions as the interactive activities at stations 2 and 4, as well as an open-ended question for other comments. The forms also included questions to collect demographic information about the respondent. Online Open House Understanding that in-person open houses are not always conducive to people’s schedules or responsibilities, an online open house was developed that enabled people to learn about the project and provide input online. The online open house format mostly mirrored the stations at the in-person open houses. The main difference was the feedback opportunity related to evaluation criteria. In the online open house, participants were given 78 points and asked to divide the points between the 12 different criteria. Participants were limited to assigning a maximum of 12 points to any single criteria. Listening Sessions In addition to the open house activities, the project team hosted a series of listening sessions. Consisting of between five and 20 stakeholders, these 1.5-hour discussions were an opportunity to have a more pointed conversation about transportation needs for a specific demographic or interest group. February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 6 The format for these meetings was relatively informal. After a brief introduction and project overview, the participants were divided into small groups and asked to explore a number of discussion questions related to the importance of the various evaluation criteria and the different investment options. General Comments Many of the communications and notification materials listed contact information for the project team and invited people to send in their feedback via email, phone, or mail. The website included a contact form that community members could use to submit questions or comments. Open House Feedback A total of 112 people participated in the open house events. The event at the Eugene Public Library was the most well attended, while the event at Willamette High School, near the Highway 99 Corridor, was the least well attended. In total, 67 completed and returned comment cards. Date Location Corridor Sign-Ins Sept. 24 Eugene Public Library 30th Ave to LCC 42 Sept. 25 Kelly Middle School River Road 35 Sept. 26 Monroe Middle School Coburg Road and MLK Blvd. 31 Sept. 27 Willamette High School Highway 99 4 Total 112 Total Comment Forms Collected 67 The online open house was open from September 10 to October 10. Views and participation in the open house spiked during email notifications, which were sent out periodically during the open house period. Metric Participants Total Views 611 Total Participants 245 Total Open-Ended Comments 114 Participants at a Spanish-language focus group discuss their thoughts on the corridor alternatives. February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 7 Investment Option Preferences In-Person Feedback Participants at the open houses were able to rate each of the options for each corridor on a five-point scale, from 5-works well to 1-serious concerns. Participants were able to provide this feedback through a dot exercise as well as on the comment forms. The combined data, as shown in Figure 6, indicates that participants generally preferred the EmX options compared to the other two options. River Road had the largest disparity of answers with EmX rated relatively higher and the No-Build option rated relatively lower compared to the other corridors. Conversely, Coburg Road had the least discrepancy between the two Build Alternatives. Figure 6 Looking at the data in more detail (see Figure 7), we find that in most corridors, the EmX option received the most ratings of “works well.” In the case of Coburg Road, the EmX option also garnered significant ratings of “serious concerns” illustrating that for this corridor, this option may be more polarizing. Enhanced Corridor options tended to have more “works well” and “works okay” ratings while the No- Build options tended to have more ratings of “some concerns” and “serious concerns” except in the case of the No-Build option for MLK, Jr. Corridor, which had the most ratings of “neutral.” February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 8 Figure 7 February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 9 Online Feedback Online open house participants were asked to rate the corridors in the same manner as the participants at the in-person open houses. As shown in Figure 8, online open house participants generally favored the build options over the No-Build options. Participants indicated preferences for Enhanced Corridor over EmX on Coburg Road and Highway 99, while they indicated a preference for EmX on River Road. Both build options received similar ratings for the 30th Avenue to LCC corridor. Figure 8 Looking at the data in more detail (see Figure 9), the in-person and online results show a similar pattern, in that EmX options tended to be more polarizing with large amounts of “works well” ratings, but also more “serious concerns” compared to the Enhanced Corridor options. In the online results, the Enhanced Corridor options generally received more “works well” — which is why they tended to get higher average ratings compared to the in-person results. February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 10 Figure 1 February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 11 Evaluation Criteria Preferences Participants were asked to give their input on their preferences for various evaluation criteria based on a list of criteria provided by the project team. Below is a list and explanation of each of the criteria. The phrases in parentheses indicate the criterion’s abbreviation on the graphs below. • Capital Costs. Capital cost includes estimated costs for vehicles, design, construction, right of way, and project management. • Operating Cost. This is the estimated annual cost to operate and maintain the service. This includes paying operators, vehicle maintenance and fuel, as well as administrative and overhead costs. • In Vehicle Transit Travel Time Savings (Travel Time). This measure estimates how long it would take for someone to travel from the end of the line to Eugene Station during the morning peak hour. • Ridership Increase (Ridership). Annual transit ridership as projected for the year 2035 using the regional transportation model. • New Bicycle/Pedestrian Access and Safety Improvements (Bike/Ped). This criterion is based on the amount of proposed investment in bicycle and pedestrian improvements in each corridor. • Support Development and Redevelopment (Development). This is an assessment of how well the alternative supports development and redevelopment as identified in adopted plans. • Tree Impacts (Trees). The number of medium and large trees that may need to be removed. • Number/Acreage of Acquisitions (Acquisitions). This criterion is based on the number and total acreage of properties that would potentially need to be purchased. • Potential Property Displacements (Displacement). This measure indicates the number of residences or businesses that may be displaced as a result of constructing the project. • Parking Impacts (Parking). The amount of on-street and off-street parking that may need to be removed. • Existing Jobs and Population Served (Jobs & Pop). These estimates are based on the No-Build and Enhanced Corridor Alternatives providing transit that serves people working and living within a quarter-mile of the corridor, and the EmX Alternative serving people working and living within a half-mile of the corridor. • Investment in Corridors with Disadvantaged Populations (Disadvantaged). This criterion considers the amount of spending in corridors with greater numbers of low-income and minority people. In-Person Feedback There were two opportunities to weigh in on the evaluation criteria at the open house. First, participants were given three dots that they could place next to the three criteria they consider the most important from the full list on the display board. Additionally, on the comment cards, participants were asked to rank their top five criteria from the full list of criteria. As shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2, in both exercises “New bike/pedestrian access and safety considerations” was chosen as important most often and “Ridership Increases” was chosen second most often. Similarly, the least prioritized was “Parking Impacts,” and the second least prioritized was the “Number/Acreage of Acquisitions.” February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 12 Figure 1 Figure 2 As shown in Figure 3, not only did bike and pedestrian improvements receive the most top-five rankings, but the majority of people who chose it as a top five priority also ranked it as the highest priority. In a similar fashion, both “Capital Costs” and “Investments in Corridors with Disadvantaged Populations” had February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 13 a disproportionately high number of people rank them as the #1 priority, suggesting that even if these two items aren’t as important overall, the people who do find them important are particularly passionate about these topics. Figure 3 February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 14 Online Feedback In the online open house exercise, participants were given a total of 78 points and were asked to allocate the points across the 12 criteria. The most points they could allocate to any one of the criteria was 12. As shown in Figure 4, the results resembled the in-person open house feedback with “New Bike/Pedestrian Access and Safety Considerations” receiving the most total points and “Parking Impacts” and “Number/Acreage of Acquisitions” receiving the fewest total points. Online open house participants indicated a higher importance for “In Vehicle Travel Time Savings,” compared to participants at the in- person open houses, giving it the second most overall points. Figure 4 Looking at the allocation of points in more detail (see Figure 5), we see that many people preferred to give the maximum points (12) or no points rather than dividing their points more evenly between all of the criteria. This was particularly true of bike and pedestrian improvements, along with “Capital Costs” and “Investments in Corridors with Disadvantaged Populations” where, similar to the in-person open house, people disproportionately preferred to give these the maximum number of points when they chose them, indicating a particularly strong preference. February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 15 Figure 5 February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 16 Participants view information displays and talk with staff at the River Road Corridor Open House at Kelly Middle School on Sept. 25, 2018. Open-Ended Comments There was a total of 161 open-ended comments from the online open house and the in-person open house comment forms. The most frequent type of comment related to specific improvement or additional service requests. These requests and suggestions were broad, though the River Road corridor was the most common for suggested changes or improvements. Other comment themes included: • Bike and Pedestrian Improvements. 25 comments voiced support for better, safer biking infrastructure. 16 comments voiced support for better walking infrastructure. • General support. 22 comments voiced general support for transit improvements. Common reasons included providing transportation alternatives, reducing traffic, and environmental or climate change concerns. • Traffic concerns. 17 comments mentioned concerns about possible increased traffic for motor vehicles due to the MovingAhead investments. • Financial Concerns. Seven comments mentioned concerns regarding the overall cost of the investments compared to the expected benefits. • Stop Spacing Concerns. Six comments mentioned concerns about the increased spacing between stops in some of the investment options. See Appendix 2 for the demographics of open house participants. See Appendix 3 for all open-ended comments from open house participants. February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 17 Listening Session Feedback The listening sessions were an opportunity to get feedback from more targeted groups of individuals including underrepresented and special interest groups. Date Stakeholder Group Participants 10/1 Neighborhood Leaders 9 10/2 Schools and Youth 5 10/4 Businesses 01 10/10 Affordable Housing 3 10/12 Seniors 12 10/16 Spanish Language Community 22 Key insights from these meetings include: • Bike and pedestrian access and safety was considered the highest priority at four of the five listening sessions. Although still important, participants at the affordable housing listening session did not consider it as important as reducing transit travel times or investing in corridors with disadvantaged populations. • There was a general preference for the build options (EmX and Enhanced Corridor) compared to the No-Build options. The notable exception is that at the neighborhood leaders listening session there was agreement that the MLK, Jr. Corridor is already well served and the No- Build option should be considered. • During the schools and youth listening session, the group noted a connection between walking and biking and the need for investments in corridors with disadvantaged populations. • During the senior listening session and Spanish language listening session, there were frequent mentions of improvements to station amenities, such as providing more shelters, increasing lighting for pedestrian visibility, and cleaning up garbage. See Appendix 4 for all comments and notes from the listening sessions. 1 This session was promoted through RAIN, the Chamber of Commerce, Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, Latino Business Network, Arts and Business Alliance of Eugene, Lane Workforce Partnership, and Lane Workforce Development/Sector Strategies. Although several people indicated an interest in the event on Social Media outlets, no one attended this event. Additional information has been sent to the business community through RAIN and the Chamber of Commerce. In lieu of this, the project team made a presentation the Chamber of Commerce’s Local Government Affairs Council (see community presentations below). Spanish language listening session February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 18 General Project Comments Throughout the summer, the project team solicited comments at community briefings and tabling events. Tabling Date Event People Engaged 3/23 350 Eugene Event 30 6/19 Party in the Park (Tugman) 40 6/26 Party in the Park (Willakenzie) 30 6/29 Breakfast at the Bridges (Whiteaker) 15 7/17 Party in the Park (Whiteaker) 25 7/29 Sunday Streets (Downtown) 50 8/7 Party in the Park (Bethel) 30 8/21 Party in the Park (Arrowhead) 30 9/7 Fiesta Cultural/First Friday 50 9/18 SEN Summer Picnic 75 9/23 Sunday Streets (W. Eugene) 75 10/8 UO Transportation Day 45 Community Presentations Date Event People Engaged 3/23 350 Eugene Event 30 9/17 NE Neighbors Group 80 10/5 Latino Professionals 7 10/8 Eugene Chamber of Commerce Public Affairs Committee 30 10/11 Eugene Active Transportation Committee 15 Additionally, during this time, 46 people submitted comments about the project directly. These included: Submittal Type # of Comments Email 30 Phone Call 3 Letter 1 Website Contact Form 12 February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 19 Full comments from these activities are provided in Appendix 2. Below are some of the key themes from these comments: • Outreach and engagement. The most common topic for these comments was about the importance of the outreach and engagement process and ensuring that all voices are heard. Eleven people made comments about this. • Accessibility. There were five comments that specifically mentioned the importance of mobility device considerations in transit and pedestrian improvements. • Bike and pedestrian improvements. Five comments voiced support for more and better bike and pedestrian infrastructure. • Traffic concerns. Five comments mentioned concerns about the increase in vehicle traffic due to changes to the roadways (such as stop lights or bus-only lanes). See Appendices 5 and 6 for all comments and notes from the tabling events, community presentations, and general comments. February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 20 Appendix 1: Communication Materials MovingAhead website: February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 21 E-news, sent June 25, 2018: February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 22 Poster Postcard February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 23 Appendix 2: Open House Demographics Below is a summary of demographic information about participants in the online and in-person open houses. Note: Demographics questions were optional, so this information may not fully represent the demographic makeup of the participants. Age The online open house participants were generally younger than the in-person open house participants. Nearly 50% of online participants were between the ages of 25 and 44, while almost 60% of the in- person open house participants were between the ages of 55 and 74. 1.0% 5.1% 20.4% 28.1% 13.3% 16.8% 13.3% 2.0%1.9% 0.0% 5.6%5.6% 18.5% 27.8% 29.6% 11.1% 17 and under 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75+ % o f p a r t i c i p a n t s Online In-Person February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 24 Sex For both the online and in-person open houses, men were a slightly higher percentage of participants. Employment Most of the online open house participants were employed outside the home. Aligning with the higher age of in-person open house participants, nearly half of in-person participants were retired. 4.3% 46.4%49.3% Online Other Female Male 3.2% 44.4%52.4% In-Person Other Female Male 1.6%1.6%2.5%2.5%3.3%3.3%4.1% 6.2%13.2% 61.7% 2.8%2.8%6.9%2.8%4.2% 44.4% 36.1% % o f p a r t i c i p a n t s Online In-Person February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 25 Household Income Income was similar for participants of both the online and in-person open houses with roughly 50% of participants having a household income of over $75,000. Household Size For both the online and in-person open houses, the most common household size was two people. 2.7%1.6% 4.8%5.9%7.0% 10.8% 14.0% 21.0% 32.3% 4.7%2.3% 7.0%7.0%9.3% 4.7% 14.0% 18.6% 32.6% Less than $10,000 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $44,999 $45,000 to $54,999 $55,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more % o f p a r t i c i p a n t s Online In-Person 17.2% 42.6% 20.1% 13.2% 5.4% 0.5%0.5%0.5% 23.3% 51.7% 15.0% 8.3% 1.7% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 % o f p a r t i c i p a n t s Online In-Person February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 26 Language Spoken at Home For both in-person and online open house participants, English was indicated as the main language spoken at home. One online participant indicated Spanish was the main language spoken at home and one participant indicated Esperanto. Race Caucasian/White was the identified race for the significant majority of both online and in-person open house participants. Caucasian/ White 84.6% African- American/Black 3.3% Asian 3.3% Hispanic 4.2% Other 4.7% Other 15.4% Online Caucasian/ White 93.7% African- American/Black 4.8% Other 1.6% Other 6.3% In-Person February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 27 Appendix 3: All Open House Comments • I do not think West Eugene EMX improved congestion through the corridor. I do not believe another EMX route will improve congestion. I think we need to use what we have and make improvements. • I think it would be better if there were no EmX routes at all. They just seem to cause problems for most people including many commuters like myself. • River road needs does not need EmX. We need more buses during peak hours and service hours that can get people to and from work who start before 7 or work after 9. I regularly use the River Road buses and current EmX. River Road does not have enough riders midday to warrant the damage to vehicle, pedestrian and bike traffic the way EmX devastated Franklin corridor and increased risk to pedestrians. The way to improve River Rd ridership is run one route up to 11th so we can connect up 99 or connect west without wasting 30+ mins going downtown to transfer. Nothing is growing out River Rd direction. An EmX out here would end up like the Northwest expressway, a huge expenditure that no one uses! Another reason my neighbors avoid the bus is you can no longer stay dry under the tiny roofs that replaced the sided structures that did keep you dry. The growth in Eugene is happening out Coburg and 99. Please spend the money there. • Bicycle access from RR to 99 is very limited if not life threatening. Maxwell bridge needs a rethink to get to Bethel area. • I had hoped that RR would have one lane for vehicles and one travel lane for Emx. Plus, buffered bike lanes on each side. Sidewalks on each side are really important. • There is no safe way to get from north of Beltline to south except on RR. My kids and I would ride bikes daily if there was an alternative crossing. Instead, I'm not 1 but 2 cars on the road. • Give Santa Clara love!" • EmX additions sometimes leave bike lanes in jeopardy (e.g. W 11th). Please consider their safety. Connecting from RR to Bethel is not good and no changes appear to be on the radar. • EmX and improved bike/ped safety are critical for 30 Ave to LCC • I had hoped you were looking into safer bike lanes from 30th at Hilyard to I5 and then continued to river bike path in Eugene. EmX takes up too much space and only UO-downtown do I see people on it or ride it myself. • On MLK let cyclists know the bicycle lane is the sidewalk. • Strongly support bus passes for middle and high school students • More protect bike lanes and more room for bikes on buses • Small buses/mini vans for neighborhood loops for people to access main bus routes (may not be feasible)" • An off-street bike path to LCC would serve the communities long term interests & encourage biking to campus February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 28 • Bike/ped needs to be considered for this to work-- including the distance between each stop for elderly and disabled people walking. And for bike storage in/on the buses for people to use more than one mode of transportation. • Emx rarely have routes that have had bike lanes, so Coburg Rd shouldn't be considered for Emx. We don't yet know the impact of Uber n Lyft before investing millions of dollars! • I would like better bike infrastructure on MLK. Also, connection to EMX. • I’d love to see additional, safe bike lanes and paths leading to the river trails, especially on north delta highway. It would be wonderful to see an extension of the northeast bus route along Ayers as well. • Make sure that bicyclists are well protected from traffic in corridor design improvements. • Need many more miles of protected bike lanes to encourage more ridership throughout the city. • Need to finish 6th/Hwy99. They repaved it, but need sidewalks, etc. along Garfield to Roosevelt section. Thought there was a federal handicap access law? • sidewalk connectivity is sorely lacking throughout the city. • Stutter flash crosswalks are awful and unsafe. A proper red light stop at a crosswalk would provide better safety for pedestrians crossing bigger roads like River Road. Please ensure this is factored in to any plan that would otherwise add crosswalks. • The more provisions for bicycles the better. • Coburg Road needs more alternative transportation and safer pedestrian and bike routes TODAY! Trees for shade would also be helpful as a buffer for sound and sun. • Even if Coburg isn't selected for EmX or Enhance Corridor there is currently no safe way to cross the street between Willakenzie and Chad Dr. This makes riding the bus, especially with small children very challenging. Please consider adding a pedestrian crossing or a signal at Elysium and Coburg. • go by bike! • It's absurd that the buses don't run on the weekends! River Rd residents require reasonable metro service that correlates to our transportation needs; i.e. buses that run during rush hour, that come more than every 60-90 minutes, that come on the weekends: meet the needs of the residents who depend on public transit to get to work on time. • Good bike infrastructure keep it going and add more!! more lanes, more roads, more protected and semi-protected lane improvements! Drivers are friendly to bicyclists (mostly). • I don't regularly use these corridors because they are so unsafe via bike. If they were safe to use by bike, I would use them all the time. I never go out Highway 99 because it is unsafe, however have family that live there, and it would be nice to have the option to arrive safely. I live so close to MLK, Jr. Blvd, but refuse to ride my bike in that area because it is too unsafe. • I drive MLK every day (2-3 times a day) and do not see any current issues with it, either from a drive time perspective or a congestion perspective. I'm unclear what the current identified issues even are with this corridor. No bike lanes directly on MLK causes bikers to ride on the sidewalk which is one issue that I see. All bus stops have a turn out with a pedestrian crossing at the same location, which is great. • Improving infrastructure for pedestrian and human-powered transportation at least as much needed as for busing. I learned at the ODOT /LTD/Univ/City Traffic Summit presentation at EMU in 2006 the results of the ODOT survey of transportation (non-recreational travel in the community for work, shopping etc.) the resulting statistics - 1% trips by bus, 2% by bike, 4% by February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 29 pedestrians. I had used mainly bike for transportation for the prev 40 yrs, the EMX thru Franklin had just been finished, and facilities for bike & ped were significantly reduced by that project and have not been improved since except for the Univ improvements on the S side of Franklin near Agate. • Please don't forget about pedestrian connections and infrastructure to complement these investments! Bus and bike get a lot of attention, but pedestrian infrastructure is just as important. People of all ages and abilities should feel safe and comfortable walking through their community. • Please, please remove car lanes for EMX. The added lanes for EMX on 6th and 7th are absurd. Pedestrians have to cross 10 lanes just to get through the neighborhood. Instead, the city/LTD should have removed car lanes from the way overbuilt 6th and 7th car sewers. Fewer lanes makes the city more walkable, safer, bikeable, greener, healthy, etc. The top priority should be EMX on Coburg. Don’t listen to all the chamber of commerce trolls that killed this project years ago. EMX will keep this growing area from choking on itself and save millions of dollars in futile road projects. Also, prioritize EMX down south Willamette. This area will boom with congestion without it. Acquire right of way to build EMX with physically separated cycle tracks, wide sidewalks and street trees. This could become a lovely, lively walkable neighborhood. Also, don’t waste hundreds of millions of dollars on inducing yet more traffic on belt line over the river. Any project here should be bike/ped/transit only like the new bridge in Portland. Thanks for working for transit! • The corridors that I've marked as not regularly using are the corridors that my family cannot safely access on our bicycles. • I'm primarily concerned that the fate of relatively cheap safer bicycle infrastructure is tied to relatively expensive (but wonderful!) transit infrastructure. All of the protected bike lanes in the EmX options would be huge improvements, whether we get more EmX routes or not. • For Coburg Rd, it's not clear to me if either the Enhanced or EmX would offer improvements over the current MUP at the south end, but the number of driveways that cross it make that section feel almost less safe than the on-street bike lane. • For Highway 99, I question the lack of protected bike infrastructure. Surely vehicle speeds of 55+ MPH would justify protection as much or more than River Rd. I'd also like to see a connection made to allow access to and from the River Rd area. • In terms of how this survey will be analyzed, I don't know how you'll know that my ""some concerns"" about Enhanced Corridors is that they are not safe enough for vulnerable road users as opposed to another survey for which ""some concerns"" would be that they make too many safety improvements and are not ""auto oriented"" enough. • Your so-called enhancements for bicycles will continue our historic decline in cycling and walking. I think some of you need to get out (of your cars) more. Sidepaths are notoriously dangerous. Placing bike lanes between high-speed lanes used by motorists is a loser, particularly since we do such narrow bike lanes. Sorry, six-foot bike lanes next to a bus and an SUV won't cut it. • Go back to the drawing board and remove travel lanes on River road, then place the EmX in the center of the road and 8' bike lanes on the right side of the road. You'll need to improve the crossings for pedestrians, so they can reach the bus platforms, but will have calmed the speed of motorists while allowing the EmX to make good time. Considering induced demand, this February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 30 approach wins the day for reducing car trips. Also, since the bike lanes will be in the zone that is normally scanned by motorists, it will enhance safety for cyclists. The only other thing necessary is a quality (signalized) crossing at Kourt/Owosso for cyclists, since this is the obvious route for cyclists from the Ruth Bascomb bike paths along the river to North Eugene High School, Corridor Elementary, and Yujin Gakuen Elementary. • Beyond practicality, the perception of biking as being safe is important to ridership. Many riders I know express feeling unsafe from vehicles, especially at intersections, and turns, and don't feel like traffic laws are adequately enforced in order to deter risky driving. • Please add additional protected pedestrian crossings north of Hilliard (in addition to those planned for the southern portion of RR) • Include park and ride option/autonomous or ride share station for lower RR. • Cycling on many corridors does not feel safe - especially along RR. • Work with business and property investment communities to promote links between 21st century transit system and development/redevelopment. • Clearly communicate benefits of transit improvements to adjacent homeowners. " • Would like…protected bike lanes, better sidewalks for motorized wheelchairs. People using these often use the bike lane, Corner of 11th and High St. has been a major concern. Drivers have frequently not noticed bikes and will cut in front of them suddenly to turn left. • Both Coburg Rd. corridor options show enhanced ped xing @ Jeppesen/Coburg. While this would be beneficial to Sheldon students/ those on west side of coburg, existing apartments preclude extension east of coburg. Suggest that both options provide for a traffic signal at Coburg/Elysian and that transit stops/stations be integral to support redevelopment/development of site northeast of the intersection. Signalizing this intersection would support all modes of travel and improve traffic circulation and safety - regardless of which transit option is ultimately chosen. • We need better signal treatments to get across RR on bikes with children (big bikes too). The intersections are mostly staggered on low-traffic streets (the ones people on bikes will actually ride on). I know it goes against the traffic warrants, but please fix at least Owosso to hourt which is the main connection from the bike paths to three schools. Obviously, Howard could use some help as well. • Trapping bike lanes between BAT lanes and travel lanes is awful. Side paths are also problematic if there are any driveways or intersections. • Some of the busses need to be cleaned some more: vacuuming and wiping, especially because of how many people are spreading germs due to sicknesses. The busses from Eugene to Coburg road (67) should run more often a bit after 6 pm because it’s difficult to coordinate catching that bus while getting off of the EmX from campus. Lastly, the crosswalk at the intersection of Tandy Turn and Coburg road should be adjusted for how quickly the pedestrian walk sign responds because I have had to wait almost every time for minutes before I cross and have almost missed the bus as I see it pulling up because the crosswalk won’t let me cross even with unsteady traffic. • Go electric whenever possible. Support EV charging at multi-unit housing and workplaces. Continue to improve phone apps for overall mobility. • Want protected bike lanes on RR • Extend bike path north of Beaver St to Admiral February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 31 • Need lots of pedestrian crossing safety enhancements on RR • Create greater tree canopy for RR • Carbon reduction is my number one concern" • We need to protect our air and water and improving our transit system would be a huge step. Yes, it will cost a lot, but what choice do we have? • We need to get the people who can get out of their cars onto the bus, bikes, or onto their feet. " • I would like to lose as few trees as possible. I would like better cycling options. • In light of the recent UN report on climate change, it is essential that LTD's fleet of buses be fully battery-electric as soon as possible, whichever options it pursues. • Besides the trees, there should be a question about other environmental impacts, including both flora and fauna, of any changes to public transportation in the future, especially expansion of systems. Getting private cars and trucks off the road is always a good idea, though. • Beyond providing reliable, convenient alternatives to driving, the most important thing that we can do in making these changes is make driving less convenient. Bus-only lanes, and wider, protected pedestrian routes and bike lanes can be taken out of driving lanes, and we absolutely must reduce the speed limits on all of these corridors. Thank you for the work you are doing! • I didn't see anything in the literature about environmental impacts. In particular, 30th to LCC travels through a forested area with lots of wildlife. If you increase service, how will you mitigate traffic and infrastructure impacts on wildlife? Will you build safety features to keep wildlife from being hit by vehicles? It's already a big problem on this stretch of road. • Also, I'm really disappointed that a government-funded website did not provide captioning or even a transcript for its videos. This is such a basic accessibility requirement. Please do better in the future. • Serve low income work and live areas first, then high traffic corridors second. • Thanks for your interest in public comment but as I am not an expert on logistics or transportation engineering I hope that you all are listening to the professionals who are experts on this stuff. The public is great at letting you know what we think but I certainly don't know what the right answers are. I hope that you select the options that make the most sense for the people who are most likely to use the transport - Helping poorer folks without access to reliable personal transportation seems a greater priority than giving us rich folks in South Eugene another bike lane. I hope you create a progressive transportation plan and system that not only moves folks about town but does so in ways that address inequity and likely housing/development patterns. In my neighborhood I have ample transportation options - we have one car; my husband and kids ride the bus or bike to school. We're good. I'm happy to pay for solutions that improve the community and support stability for families and individuals. • Please consider acquisition of key parcels along each corridor to facilitate development of affordable housing for working class people to avoid the "Seattle effect" of skyrocketing real estate values along improved transit corridors! Will the coburg route have capacity to carry increased traffic to MLK from all other routes on game days in the autzen complex? The same would apply to the 30th Ave corridor as it approaches civic park. • I have never been on a bus in Eugene. I looked into taking it to work. It would take over an hour. It takes 8 minutes to drive, 15 minutes to bike, and 45 minutes to walk. • I do not currently use public transportation because as a working parent, I cannot afford the time to drop my child off at school and get to work in a reasonable amount of time. It would add February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 32 at least an hour to my commute each way, significantly impacting my quality of life for myself and my child. I hate being a single occupant car. Sitting in traffic makes me feel gross, but I don't feel like I have a choice. There just isn't an efficient way to get where I need to go from 99, to 18th St. to downtown. It's not that big of a town, I just know I don't have the time or energy. So I use my car. • Improvements in traffic patterns and getting buses out of travel lanes at stops will have major improvements for the rest of us that don't use transit. I can't realistically spend 40 minutes on a bus for a commute that takes 10-15 in a car and would go faster if the bus wasn't on the road with me. • EMX is a pork project and is a huge waste of money. The West 11th EMX has totally screwed up traffic with its inconsistent rules. • I am less concerned about capital costs than increases in annual operating cost. • If this is funded by a bond measure I expect it to be repealed after funding of construction and operation, otherwise you're just levying another permanent tax. • $78 million dollars for 8 minutes gained doesn't compute in my book. Bus service routes are not convenient. Should not have to go downtown before reaching destination. Should not have to walk 1/2 mile or more to reach bus service. • An EMX corridor is extremely expensive to construct and to operate. I don't want to see another corridor like the West 11th corridor built anytime in my lifetime. $100,000,000 to replace existing bus service is an unbelievable waste of federal and local tax dollars. Federal funding is not free money. Please don't destroy Coburg Road by building another EmX corridor. Please keep in mind that the percentage of transit trips is decreasing in the Portland area, not increasing. • At $80 million for 5 miles of road to save 8 minutes along river road? It doesn't even take 10 minutes to drive from Awbrey Park to the chambers overpass.....Why not just raise the speed limit back to what it was for 50 years, and increase frequency of service to match your customer’s needs, and give everyone who lives or works along river road a free pass for 10 years and send them to the casinos with a couple bundles of 1's? You'd still be millions under budget, so bigger bonuses for the LTD execs. No need to incinerate pallets of ""other people's"" cash on a wasteful project. We're already at full employment, so no need for corrupt ""stimulus"" jobs here. • I will be voting NO. on ANYTHING money based that is not related to majorly cracking down on the homeless-by-choice problem that is currently plaguing this city, and increasing security of residents, and enforcement / prosecution of the crimes that are primarily and very frequently committed by the HBC's (Homeless by Choice) • I’m very concerned about service frequency along 30th Ave outside of main LCC times. Should be able to get there for events. • I'd like to see transit investments. Frequency of bus service is most important, with neighborhood connectivity and safety improvements accessing transit. • If you build it wisely and well, it will be used. Bus, bike and walk are all available alternatives to the car. • If the buses run often enough it will save people time. They will use them. February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 33 • It would be nice if fares could be reduced/subsidized by say a fuel tax. Those that drive (like me) would be willing to pay more to help get other drivers into buses. That reduces the traffic congestion I have. • You could help by having printouts of the boards. • Nice open house presentation. Informed staff helpful to discussion. Thank you for thoughtful process. This is visionary and exciting! Support evaluation of all corridors together, smart, cost effective, educational. • I don’t really see how this survey gathers helpful information. The point allocation part didn’t make a lot of sense to me. I wasn’t 100% sure what I was allocating points to. • I think concerns of people living in these areas should have the weight as the businesses in the area and not less. Some decisions seem to only cater to business concerns and not the residence of these corridors. This is not fair or right. • It would be helpful to have more clarity regarding the difference between the Enhanced Corridor and EmX options as they relate to each specific corridor. • I think the City and LTD have done good things for transportation planning. This metro area is ahead of the curve when you compare the level of transportation and variety of service of Eugene and Springfield to eastern cities of similar size. I like all the build solution options presented for each corridor. My only suggestion is related to the presentation. You should consider showing a current road section above or below the proposed road section, so you can compare the existing to proposed directly. Also, clearly labeling the right of way line on each section would be very helpful. • Is it a typo that the enhanced option for 30th ave would actually decrease ridership? I couldn't find any explanation for that. Also, neither map for 30th Ave showed any of the yellow bike improvements along 30th itself, which is probably the most dangerous section. • Please contact Residents of Willamette Gardens Apartments themselves on Kinsrow Ave. We (a low-income housing complex) AREN'T affiliated with the U of O and I don't appreciate the lack of transparency, lack of outreach to us, and over-reliance on the university for communication with Kinsrow Ave housing residents and I DON'T appreciate the assumption that 100% of Kinsrow Residences are all 100 percent UO related. Plenty of non-students and non-staff live there. You may contact me at 541-514-3535 • the travel time measurement was stated something like ""PM peak travel time on a corridor from farthest extent of the line to Eugene station"". This measure should be from Eugene Station to the farthest extent of the line to capture the direction most people want to move at the end of the day, i.e. from work to home. if you measure it as you stated you are capturing the reverse of the commute most people need and it is not a valuable measure of system effectiveness. • Your Springfield and Gateway routes are done OK. Your west 11th route and execution are criminal. Your arrogance is disgusting! Respond to what the VOTERS and TAX PAYERS want. Going forward you could have a real nice rail system between the Airport and Amtrak station via the existing rail right of ways, and include stops near each major arterial. That route would not destroy existing traffic patterns and local businesses, provide a fairly rapid thru system, and utilize existing rail crossings, and still provide local accesses. Your history causes major doubts going forward. Hopefully you will plan and execute our transportation system better than this non-responding web site. February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 34 • I am amazed and skeptical of EMX increase in ridership • Is there supporting figures we can see. Ridership increase is most important to me. I’m also very interested to know how my area north of Hunsaker is proposed to be served • Thanks Kevin kjashbow@gmail.com • I appreciate events that are intended to inform and be informative. But to put tonight in perspective, it was almost 27 years to the day that I was asked by a group of LCC staff who commuted to the college by bike to come to a similar event as this tonight that was held in the old library. And during the ensuing 27 years, I've experienced very little in the way of enhanced access and safety for bikes to LCC. • Emx is the only reason I use mass transit here • I know you have very many anti-change comments, but I love the idea of an EmX BRT network, and I think its benefits to Eugene will be incredible. This shouldn't be a city for cars. It should be a city for people. • I support the EmX Alternative for River Road and the 30th Avenue to LCC Corridor, as well as bicycle improvements along or to the south of E 30th Ave. • It would make sense, with a new River Road Station being built, to implement an EmX route up River Road. • I am most interested in improving the River Road neighborhood as a whole. I see EmX as the only solution on the table to salvage a currently dis-functional corridor. I would like to see River Road be a connecting force in the neighborhood rather than a dividing one. Thanks for asking for input. Keep up the good work! • I mean, the Coburg Rd EmX looks good, but I can't even begin to imagine the regressive screeching from the Coburg Rd yuppies. You thought the bullshit campaign against West Eugene EmX was bad? Whoof. I think Hwy 99 is both a good route and a path of least resistance to a new EmX line. • Priority should be placed on providing EMX to City designated nodal development areas. Located north of beltline and east of Coburg Road the Crescent Village nodal development area was put in place over twelve years ago. Located in the fastest growth area of the City, several developments have been built with walkable amenities such as wide sidewalks and outdoor plazas. The area has been prohibited from auto-oriented uses such as no drive-up restaurants or even a coffee kiosk due to the nodal development overlay zone. It is vital to enhance the City and LTD work together to improve transit service to this area. • The biggest advantage EMX provides is improving quick cross-town connectivity. Expanding EMX service to Highway 99 and River Road is a huge step in that direction. Expansion into Springfield is also crucial. However, the Coburg and MLK expansions provide minimal travel time improvements for the level of investment. Absent the ability to meaningfully improve connectivity to WinCo and Walmart in Springfield, there isn't much point to the MLK expansion. The LCC Enhanced Corridor expansion is most beneficial for its roadway improvements and buffered bike lane between the end of the Amazon Park multi-use path system and downtown, but again, EMX service in this area isn't meaningfully faster than standard bus service. • why does the MLK route not include an EMX consideration • I would like to know if the Enhanced investment package for Highway 99 corridor would be changing the designations for 11th and 13th avenues. For example, they are considered a February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 35 ""minor arterial"" - would that designation change depending on the investment package decided upon? If so what are those changes? • All of your service is out of reach for me because I am more than 1/2 mile from a stop. • The most important thing you can do is keep on-time service. Passenger anxiety comes from waiting for the bus. That disappears when aboard in a seat. No matter how long the trip takes, they feel safe and secure. With only that ""on-time"" will you attract more riders. " • Highest priority should be placed on pedestrian and driver safety, then environmental concerns • I would like to see the options for east-west north of Beltline. • Need airport service • Preserve Blvd feel of coburg road. Close 4th Ave where it enters Coburg Rd. Consider bus pullouts on Coburg to help traffic flow. Widen bridge so lane flows to MLK. • Something needs to be done to Beltline at the bridge over the river now, not 10 years from now. • The bridges on Beltline need some serious help. There are really bad bottlenecks that need to be widened so traffic can flow better. This needs to be addressed. • I would LOVE to see the River Road corridor extend a little bit so myself, and others, could get to one of the many farms on public transportation. I solely rely on the bus. We have no way of accessing the benefits of farm fresh food. • Please have bus service to Greenhill. I would use it. • Focus on South Eugene! • I remember the construction/repaving along River Rd a few years ago, IT WAS A NIGHTMARE!!! Don't do it again! • In Coburg corridor under both EmX and Enhanced Transit scenarios consider station location with new traffic signal at Elysium/Coburg intersection. • The Emx needs to run from downtown through the hwy 99 corridor, down barger to greenhill and connect into the existing Emx that runs W 11th to downtown, U of O, Spfd and gateway. Should have been built when W 11th Emx corridor was built. • tho not in proposed corridors, Stop Light needed at Seneca & 5th St.: long back up on Seneca at rush hour due to stop sign. I don't use bus so didn't offer opinion on proposals. • WE would use public transport more if a corridor was placed to run east- west on Maxwell road there is nothing close enough for senior people. • Would be incredibly supportive of a more efficient bus route between downtown Eugene and Cottage Grove. Current transit time prohibits me from utilizing the existing route. • I think the most crucial corridor that should be on the list is Beltline. Stations could be installed at Beltline/Barger, Beltline/River Road, Beltline/Delta, and Beltline/Coburg. The existing stations in the Gateway area and also the station at the west end of West.11th could be used in this line. I truly believe many more people would get out of their cars and use EmX. All of the northern neighborhoods could then access some of the Eugene and Springfield's top employers much easier. This could potentially reduce the congestion issues on Beltline as well. • At this time, I do not use EmX as it takes me significantly longer time to take EmX compared to driving. • Lower cost, lower impact. EmX is great where it is, but don't you think the community would be better served if we actually implemented feeder routes with smaller more economical vehicles February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 36 and included Thurston and River Road. Maybe not run the buses so late, and don't have return routes late. Last departure would mean last departure, not return. • I enjoy taking the bus to cottage grove, I am glad there is a late bus to Eugene. I wish there was a bus to Florence and Corvallis. Yachats needs a bus to florence and back. In addition, service between Eugene, Roseburg, Medford, Ashland. It is phenomenally expensive to ride greyhound to southern Oregon. Greyhound should be phased out of existence. Riding greyhound is often a horrible experience. • Due to the congestion at the Beltline/Delta Hwy interchange I propose an additional Willamette River crossing connecting Valley River Drive to River Road. There is unused land on the River Rd side for this connection and no structures on the Valley River side would be eliminated. While expensive, it would create an important short cut reducing miles driven and travel time from one area of town to another and reduce traffic on 6th and 7th streets and on the Beltline/Delta interchange. • I am concerned about the routing proposed for the River Road Enhanced Corridor alternative, by routing on streets with at-grade railroad crossings, you seriously compromise the efficiency gains of improvements made on River Road itself. There doesn't seem to be a strong reason to use this routing, besides serving routes that currently exist. If the intention of Moving Ahead is to reduce travel time and support greater frequency, there are better options available by utilizing 11th & 13th which are existing minor arterials. It seems to me that it would make much more sense to route River Road on 11th & 13th to Chambers and serve Highway 99 by 6th & 7th, regardless of which alternative is chosen. • It really feels like the alignments chosen here are to ensure that EmX does not run on 11th or 13th. This is no doubt due to a vocal minority of residents in the Jefferson Westside Neighborhood. I am frankly baffled that LTD is considering compromising service to River Road and Highway 99 in order to appease a small, but vocal, minority of residents. It would be this person's hope that LTD would prioritize the needs of all residents of the city over the concerns of relatively wealthy property owners in one neighborhood. • I am concerned about the very large numbers of trees to be removed in several of the EmX options, and some of the Enhanced options. I can see need for some tree removal, but NOT 100s of trees. • I think 2-way cycle tracks are very confusing to motorists and are dangerous for bicycle riders using them in the ""contra-flow"" direction. • Existing Coburg Road service runs in a loop on both Routes 66 and 67, which I think works well for a lot of people. I am concerned that the Build options would disrupt that. • I think connecting to LCC via Franklin makes more sense than sending EmX vehicles over the hill on 30th. Franklin routing would provide more direct connection to Springfield Station and to EmX stations near UO. Retain service on 30th by combining it with additional service on Route 92 to Lowell. Run one EmX line from West Eugene to Thurston and another line from RiverBend to LCC, with riders transferring at either Springfield Station or at McVay Station. Leave Coburg as is, and look at some enhancement of service along Hwy 99 and River Road. Someday add a third EmX line from Santa Clara to South Willamette, with riders transferring downtown. • I attended this evening's gathering at Kelly Middle School. Thanks for the opportunity to review and comment and the info/background concerning each project was helpful. I already provided a response on the alternatives and the priorities at Kelly Middle School. I just want to add one February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 37 more comment that I thought of on the way home. It concerns the River Road Alternatives and an option to I think help increase ridership and decrease travel times. For the enhanced alternative is there any way to consider a mix of a regular bus that stops at every stop along River Road and adding an ""express"" bus that stops at only two or three locations along River Road and leaves say twice an hour. I would think the 'express"" bus would really cut down on travel time to town and that would increase ridership. If that ""express'"" bus was extended to Beacon I think you would see a good bump in ridership. I know Portland does that during rush hours on their buses and I think folks like that option. • Thanks again for your effort in reaching out to the community. • I currently use two routes regularly, but I have used two of the other routes regularly in the past. I am somewhat concerned about removal of the 81 route. I very much want improvements for pedestrian safety. I don't particularly mind if some trees are removed, but I would like other trees or plants to be added in nearby areas to compensate. If parking spots are removed, it would be nice if new ones could be created at a mini-station or new park and rides established in the area, but I'm hoping ridership would increase so the spots aren't needed. I would like to know how much increased ridership would offset operating costs. I already transfer between routes at places other than the Downtown Station and wouldn't mind more mini-stations for transfer rather than connecting downtown if that improved efficiency. I am mobility disabled, so the distances between EmX stops causing more walking concerns me. I would prefer more seating at EmX stops, Could the resting bars on posts not go all the way around but have an opening (or maybe two) for seating at a lower level or could seating have front and back making double the seating or maybe low concrete or brick backside borders that could be used as additional seating and a partial windbreak? I would prefer seating at all bus stops, actually. • I do not believe the 5 corridors prioritize the economic development strategy of an innovation district linking downtown Eugene (downtown, 5th St, and riverfront) to the knight campus very well. The importance of connectivity to support an innovation district strategy is critical and seems poorly represented in this survey. • I often compare River Road with Coburg Road... Both 5 lane roads through mixed residential and commercial (River Rd is more residential currently). They are so different! Coburg Rd has middle lane plantings and trees that soften the impact of traffic. River Road just got asphalt. I hope that if River Rd gets EmX or Enhanced Corridor that funds will go towards making the road safer, more eco-friendly, and pedestrian friendly. I'd also like attention paid to intersections, especially those near River Road Elementary and North Eugene High School, to improve pedestrian crossing safety. • I wish I could get from â€˜way out N on River Road to Coburg Road without going downtown and doubling back, then reverse it to get home the way it is now, it’s an all-day affair to go to a half-hour appointment, especially when you consider the walking time to get to/from the bus stop and the half-hour frequency. It seems like having a few nodes where one could transfer from one route to another could help shorten such a day. • I'm surprised the Highway 99 corridor doesn't include the Prairie road to Maxwell road intersection and area. The Maxwell bridge is the only way in to the River Road and Santa Clara neighborhoods from this part of town, any improvements to Highway 99, especially bicycle and pedestrian, should include this area. The current Prairie road to Maxwell road and bridge are not safe for pedestrians and bicycles. February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 38 • Also, physically separated bicycle routes from cars should be emphasized. • The north end of the Coburg corridor, the route along Crescent and Chad between Coburg Rd and Game Farm, has seen incredibly rapid development. Along that short stretch, since 2013, over 1100 high density housing units have been created. Additionally, Chad has been rezoned to allow more flexible commercial development. Frequent transit connection to downtown is overdue. • This is a failure to think outside the box. For example, a major corridor improvement would have consisted of a route linking River Road to Amazon via Chambers and 28th/29th by-passing down-town completely. It would provide high levels of service to the South Hills and connect the Amazon recreation resources with River Road. It would also provide cross-town access to EMX and the University via connections with EMX at 6th/7th and Rte. 78 at 18th Avenue. This is but one example. • We're failing. Car use is way up, walking, bus, and cycling are all collapsing as mode shares. Some serious rethinking of our approach is in order. Re River Rd: All schools are west of RR. Many students live east of RR. There are no appropriate crossings to the bike path system. Reconsider moving/changing the proposed enhanced crossing designed to serve the front of NEHS to a signal crossing at hour/ that serves the rear entrance to NEHS/corridor elementary. Also on the RR EmX alternative, consider moving the station south to serve the rear of NEHS to facilitate access to the river bike path. • People want frequent service, under protected shelters, and within short walking distance. • Thank you for asking. • As I get older, public transportation becomes more important. One of my concerns, which we will have to address as we proceed, is the distance one needs to cover from home to nearest bus stop. I think this will require a nimble system of connectors throughout the neighborhoods. Perhaps smaller, frequent bus can be employed. • Concerning River Road: - Emx Alternative - putting bikes and walkers on the same path under Beltline seems like it could be a bad mix together, especially as debris build up on sidewalk and bikes swerve to avoid debris and walkers (many north students use sidewalks here. - Enhanced alternative - really wonder if increased distance between stops will increase ridership - has a study been done to determine how many people currently vs. the enhanced version or Emx version will go downtown; poster shows a number of increased users but I guess that is based on increased capacity: need to determine how many will really start using the upgraded service on River Road - What makes River Road so attractive is the number of trees along the road; 132 trees. I guess seems a lot: try to maintain current River Road character as much as possible. - Biking along RR is not currently fun, especially if one must turn left (cross 4 lanes of traffic): no option really increases bike rider safety very much: Emx option has fewer vehicles in right lane, next to bikers, really need means to lower vehicle speeds - For enhanced option what happened under the Beltline Bridge with improvements north and south of Beltline, need a safe transition for bikes - Have roundabouts been considered or even feasible?" • EmX with walking can triple/quadruple transit time. Dangerous for elders and disabled and hard for them to get to (distance to stop) seats facing center (at frong & middle) are dangerous February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 39 especially with sudden stops, brakes are too abrupt for elders etc. Drivers sometimes do not wait until elders are seated. Schedule forces them to hurry. Needs more neighborhood buses to service W 11, Oak patch, etc. Has no effective insurance to carry safe for injuries? • I don't favor putting the bus stops further apart -- that disadvantages so many people: the young, the elderly, the disabled.... I really did not like the result of the EmX between the Eugene station and Springfield for that reason and am not crazy about the extension to Commerce for that reason. I would be happy with conventional busses that ran every 10-15 minutes with stops that are closer together. • My primary concern is that potential builds or enhancements will reduce (consolidate) the number of transit stops along Coburg Road. The most important thing to me--even more important than frequency and speed of transit--is how close each stop is to my start or destination. Part of why I chose to live at my current address is due to close walking proximity to a bus stop. If stops were removed or locations altered, it would potentially defeat the purpose of living along a transit corridor for I and other similar residents. • Thanks for taking the time to read my feedback and have a great day! • Focus on stop spacing (more spaces between stops). Make the system less downtown centric. Take auto lanes for transit. Work on signal priority. • Do what the planners do best! Plan! Don't listen to the pitchfork crowd!" • Very informative open house, thank you! I live one block from E 30th Ave and I hope to see EmX in our transportation corridor at some point in the future. • Thanks for your consideration of handicapped and for access, you have a lot of good ideas. Personally I'd like an Enhanced Corridor alternative investment option not just price, the considerations. • Glad you are thinking ahead! Go LTD! • Honestly, this stuff should have been a long time ago, I mean having to wait an hour for a bus is ridiculous and hurts those who need the bus for work and school. • I use River Road often, so I would rank it with Coburg as an important corridor. • Improving routes to Hwy 99 and River rd are a priority as a feel that is the area of town with the most growth potential in population size and job growth • Keep up the progress. I know Eugene has a strong NIMBY group, don't let that wear you down. • Make it safer to bike, walk, and ride public transit, and impossible to drive a car. Do not support private vehicle ownership. Remove parking minimum requirements from all zoning. Do not build parking garages and other wasteful uses of public space. • More buses. Anything else are window dressings. • Most of these options have too many motor vehicle lanes. • Plan for a future with fewer vehicles overall, including mass transit. • Spend the money on transit, any dollar invested is worth it • We will absolutely need highly efficient public, bike and pedestrian transportation in the very near future. • I am house shopping and currently considering which of these corridors I am willing to travel every day to get to my job downtown. This is a big deal for me personally as well as for the future of our growing city. I hope you can balance the positive investment with financial sustainability. Thanks for asking for my input! February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 40 • My husband and I are in our late 60s and appreciate being honored riders in the LTD system. Our concerns about climate change prompted us to move to a walkable neighborhood (Friendly), install solar panels, purchase an EV and eliminate a great deal of the unnecessary recreational travel we used to do. We’re grateful to live in a city that values public transport and look forward to using it more as we age. • Thank you for the thought and consideration put into this evaluation - this is an important, critical step in Eugene transit as population grows and carbon pollution must be curbed. Bike and ped access and safety are tantamount with mass transit effectiveness, as well as standalone transit options. River Road and Coburg are premier corridors, in my opinion, to effecting city wide change and adoption of alternative transportation decisions. • We need to bite the bullet and make public transportation a top priority in our community. Also alternative transportation a top priority. We need to save bike and pedestrian lanes and major public transportation options like in Europe. Major investment in the future and totally worth it • River Road and Highway 99 seem like ideal candidates. Highway 99 would allow a convenient airport access (potentially) and facilitate growth and development along that corridor. River Road would help get a large population center with access to downtown, though admittedly faces serious traffic issues. • Coordinate efforts with other current planning processes that are looking at how to plan for the future with regards to other closely related decisions (EETAC, Santa Clara Neighborhood Planning, Transit Tomorrow, etc). Also don't look to be everything to everyone, we don't have the funds. Improve/expand service for those currently most likely to use the bus for transportation and don't look too much into turning everyone into a bus rider. • My home at Eugene Hotel for 4 years is threatened by noise, air pollution, and is not pleasant for pedestrians. New buildings are not as attractive as older ones, crowding the sideways, U of O need greenery space! The possibility of Lofts Mupte offers 120 apartments and offices which have no adequate parking space, better from Arnaada of Eugene Transit System Plan. Write a letter stating traffic impact analysis is not Required! Our children's trust will bring exxon to court for concerns of air pollution. - Buses carry large numbers: hutt, farmers markets, athletic events on Franklin Blvd & MLK, many hospitals, and medical facilities in Springfield, malls, etc. I use buses almost daily, talk with drivers of Rt 66, 12, 67, 13 and tell me that they are overcrowded. Emergency vehicles, school buses, ambulances and commercial vehicles interfere. • Please continue to educate riders on how to take the bus ie rules, etiquette, etc., especially high school students. • I'm loving the West Eugene Emx (I ride all the way to UO) and I really like the idea of having the highway 99 project. If the end of the route station is near Winco that would be great because I live near there. I would want to have parking available though because when it is the darker time of year I would not walk to the bus station. I appreciate the effort going into continuing to improve our transit system and increase ridership. • Sadly I will likely retire about the time any of these projects are finished. But I will still be supportive of the projects. " • Have city rescind build to sidewalk. New structures next to sidewalk greatly limit improvements for transit and roads. • Concerned about traffic impacts of reducing lanes especially on Coburg Rd. February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 41 • If it would cut down on traffic on Coburg Rd. I'm all for it. How do you get people to use it though? • There is enough congestion on Coburg Road. Please don't destroy it by putting EmX on that corridor. EmX in West Eugene: We spent over a hundred million dollars to replace existing bus service. That was a huge mistake. • Do not touch Coburg Road • Traffic altering concerns should be considered, especially along already congested areas such as River Road and Coburg Road • Traffic is a pain already. • You have selected extremely busy routs that have no alternatives for vehicles to go. You are only going to increase the congestion that is already on those avenues. • Concerned about reducing MLK to two lanes of through auto traffic. The stretch between Centennial Loop and Marche Chase regularly handles a heavy volume of auto traffic on its current four lane footprint. Additionally, the need for business access along that stretch is minimal so it would essentially condense two lanes of busy traffic into one to allow for a dedicated bus lane. Likely not the best use of road real estate. • Curious that your evaluation criteria don’t include anything about impacts to existing traffic and the increased greenhouse gas emissions that would inevitably ensue. Why is that? Seems to me that would be pretty important to the tens of thousands of motorists in this town, not to mention the disadvantaged populations most likely to be affected by reduced air quality. Don't forget that your duty as a public entity is to do the best for the most, not the worst for most. • One specific problem I'll use as an example is the number of additional stoplights in both Hwy 99 options (I'm sure that the no-build option is just window dressing and not under serious consideration because planners). Eleven ""enhanced crossings"" means that a typical trip between downtown and the Barger area will take at least twice as long. That's a lot of idling, and the amount of potential emissions caused by that is staggering. It's also completely contrary to the City of Eugene's Climate Recovery Ordinance. Keep that in mind- each and every additional stop light -no matter how noble the purpose- has a significant environmental cost over existing crossing facility. • You and I both know that your data on potential transit ridership increases is spurious at best and using it to justify all those extra red lights is, quite frankly, patronizing. Any potential ridership increases can be accommodated with existing transit infrastructure and doesn't need to be built on the backs of motorists (and their wallets). Looking toward the future, it's likely that ride-sharing and self-driving cars will eat into transit market share. What would be better (and cheaper) for our community in the long run- enhancing our transportation corridors to improve traffic flows (and reducing emissions) for everyone, or building transit burdens that LTD currently can't afford to operate? • I get it- if you're a hammer, every problem looks like a nail, and if you're a transit district, every problem looks like an opportunity to build a bus lover's utopia. There's a pretty significant lack of perspective here; there's no better evidence of this than my opening comment about the evaluation criteria. Either it was an oversight, or it was deliberate- both are inexcusable when we're talking about the potential to irreparably harm our community for decades to come. To get perspective, I recommend one small thing: hold a public vote. If Lane County stakeholders agree with you, then you've earned a bigger green light than any amount of MovingAhead February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 42 outreach could ever gain. If it doesn't go that way, it gives you the opportunity to listen and gain credibility and respect that money could never buy. There's really no way to lose. • Have you thought about the extra emissions that will be created by adding more buses? Or how these new projects will affect the commuters who are not using the buses or bike lanes? I for one am not looking forward to having a longer commute to work. I think that these plans will not be as helpful as you think, and I wish that we were able to vote on this because I know that many people would agree with me. • I mostly drive around town. It would be helpful to have the bus stops not in the way of car drivers. Most countries have a cut out area for the bus to get in and out of the road for the bus stops. It would be great if more of such stops are created in Eugene to avoid holding up traffic flow while the bus stops to load and unload and its safer for the people waiting for the bus and getting off the bus. A shelter for the people waiting for the bus since we have a long rainy season in Eugene. • I would like to see cost-efficient improvements for the Eug-Spr transportation system. EmX does not fit this criterion. I think bus pullouts at stops and increased bus service frequency, where demand is high, makes for the most effective service improvements. EmX has a negative effect on other vehicular travel. Buses stopping in a travel lane slow other travel and cause unsafe conditions. • We use the River Road corridor on a regular basis via privately owned vehicle. LTD bus service already exists on this route. Addition of an EMX route would further disrupt traffic in the area which is bad enough already. This is not to mention the potential year-long (or longer) disruption construction of the special EMX lanes, signals and stops would cause. I for one cannot believe, based on the ridership I have viewed while observing EMX buses en route, that the line is a financially viable alternative to the normal LTD bus service. It appears that the entire program is a scheme to milk grant money out of the federal government. • My concern is less about how long I spend in vehicle transit, but how long my total transit time is - home to destination. As a property owner and regular driver on the RR corridor, I am concerns about impacts to property, my property value, and parking, and about inconvenience and increased travel time as a driver. I also disagree with the way LTD is funded - i.e. by business owners. • My main concern is to improve the ridership on LTD as a means to improve traffic on all corridors. I think more frequent service (though not necessarily with Emx) would go a long way to accomplish this. • Additionally: save as many trees as possible and improve bike safety. " • My major concern is the impact on Oalway Rd. Coburg Rd. potentially will become increasingly congested with a lot of distractions (walking, biking, multi-buses, cars) that people will decide to take Oakway Rd. both during construction and after. Many residential streets feed directly into Oakway Rd. Making it very difficult to turn onto it. A significant increase in population with all the high-density projects will negatively impact lifestyle. • Coburg road has difficult travel already and will only become more expensive to expand EMX as time goes on. Do EMX asap. Second priority is River Road. February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 43 Appendix 4: All Listening Session Comments Neighborhood Leaders Listening Session This listening session included neighborhood association leaders from neighborhoods surrounding the corridors. Evaluation Criteria: • Bike and Pedestrian Access and Safety – bike accessibility; safe and busy intersections. Safety is the #1 priority (most important) • Ridership Increase –Provide transportation options, service to places like Elderly Group Homes, frequent service is important, Ease of Use and Access, such as providing pre-paid fares. • Tree impacts – not removing trees • Transit Travel Time Savings – Travel between corridors is difficult • Investment in Corridors with Disadvantaged Populations – investments that support people with mobility devices • Cost – people would support increased capital cost if it reduced operating cost • Parking Impacts – Less parking is needed; would support other travel options • Support Development and Redevelopment – would like to see bus pullouts • Existing Jobs and Population Served – this criteria was noted as important, but no specific comments were provided about it. Investment Options: • River Road – shopping, Emerald Park, Paths, currently underserved – consider Enhanced Corridor or EmX • River Road – major concern with shared use path section • River Road – would like to see center running transit • Coburg Road – Serves the VA Clinic – Consider EmX • Coburg Road – Beltline Interchange is scary • Highway 99 – crossings are currently very dangerous/scary – consider Enhanced Corridor or EmX • MLK Jr. Blvd – already well served – consider no-build option • 30th to LCC – safety improvements are important – consider Enhanced Corridor • 30th to LCC - Re-evaluate bike lane on 30th Avenue; EmX not a good option • Concern with RFB pedestrian crossings – Hawk signal is better • LCC and U of O are major destinations February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 44 • River Road pedestrian crossings are needed – use red flashing crossings • BAT Lanes are working well on 6th and 7th Schools and Youth Listening Session This group focused on understanding the transportation needs of school children and their families, along with school staff. Attendees included three Safe Routes to Schools coordinators, one school principal and one student. Evaluation Criteria: • Bike and Pedestrian Access and Safety (most important)– set precedence in Eugene for other communities • Investment in Corridors with Disadvantaged Populations – however mitigate possible gentrification. There is a connection between walking and biking and disadvantaged populations, therefore this criterion was tied as most important with Bike and Ped Access and Safety. • Travel Time Savings/Frequency (second most important) – Need to provide service for after school events. Many use transit to get to LCC. • Ridership Increase – to get more cars off the road/less vehicle trips • Cost – both capital and operating costs are important. Need to consider if we can afford it once it’s built. • Parking is the least important criteria (to some), others felt parking was important downtown. Consider mitigating if possible by providing park and ride facilities (near Highway 99). • Potential Property Displacements – this criteria was noted as important, but no specific comments were provided about it. • Existing Jobs and population Served – this criteria was noted as important, but no specific comments were provided about it. • Trees – this criteria was noted as lower in priority because trees will be replaced Investment Options: • Highway 99 – EmX level of service • Highway 99 is a feeder to Bethel • Coburg and River Road – high level of bike and pedestrian investments; but Enhanced Corridor may be more appropriate for both • MLK Jr. Blvd serves Chase Village and other housing, plus Centennial School and U of O Students (housing) • 30th to LCC connection is important for students (club soccer, etc.) • Consider the perception within the community if there is a high level of investment in the southern end of the community vs. the northern side of the community (i.e. 30th to LCC vs. River Road or Highway 99). • River Road may be more appropriate for EmX due to being able to serve more residents • Construction on Coburg Road will be challenging due to congestion February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 45 Seniors Listening Session This group focused on the needs of seniors and those with mobility challenges. The session was held at the Ya-Po-Ah Terrace Retirement Community and included members of that community. Evaluation Criteria: • Bike and Pedestrian Safety and Access (high use at Sheldon and Gateway) • Frequency is important (more often and on weekends) Investment Options: • Enhanced shelters are important – need to provide better protection from the weather • Coburg Road currently is unsafe to cross. Need pedestrian crossings with flashing lights • (Comment form) Safe crossing is needed on Coburg Road at Trader Joes • River Road is better for bikes. Like the new crossings. • (Comment form) More buses are needed on Cottage Grove between 7 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. on week days. There is only one shelter stop at Main Street and River Road. Other Comments: • (Comment form) We seniors love LTD! That’s First! If we could have wind breaks at the two worst bus stops for wind with cold at 1) Sheldon and; 2) Gateway. The buildings are far away, and I have become panicked and shivering at these two places. • (Comment form) For the City of Eugene: Pedestrian sidewalks under bridges seem off limits to most of us because they are homeless encampment areas and hazardous waste, blocked sidewalks with tents, discarded clothing and people drinking alcohol, using drugs, and delusional shouting – etc. Too unsafe, too threatening. Unsafe sidewalks shared by fast moving cycles, wheelchair bound and slower walkers. • Garbage is an issue – on Highway 99 • No smoking signage is needed at Shelters (painted on the sidewalk maybe) • Need more room for walkers/mobility devices on Route 1. Need to advocate for those using mobility devices (provide an automated statement on the bus) Spanish Language Listening Session This group focused on community members that spoke Spanish as their primary language. A bilingual interpreter led the discussion to encourage participation in either English or Spanish. Evaluation Criteria: • New Bicycle/Pedestrian Access & Safety Improvements – better access to bus service is needed, especially at Royal & Terry near Echo Hollow. • Ridership increase – provide expanded service on holidays and weekends and earlier service each day. More people would use transit. Frequency is most important. Covered bus stops (especially at grocery stores) • Investment in Corridors with Disadvantage Populations February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 46 • Transit Travel Time Savings – don’t use the bus because it takes too long to get where I’m going. No direct connection to school on the bus. • Support Development and Redevelopment – this criteria was noted as important, but no specific comments were provided about it. • Tree impacts– this criteria was noted as important, but no specific comments were provided about it. • Existing Jobs and Population Served – this criteria was noted as important, but no specific comments were provided about it. Investment Options: • River Road – shopping – Consider EmX • Highway 99 – Consider EmX • EmX on all corridors, but especially Highway 99 and River Road because they go to the most places (need more station amenities on Highway 99) • Enhanced Corridor Investment seems appropriate for most or all corridors to reduce spending • Enhanced stations/shelters with more amenities are needed to protect people from the weather and to provide necessary comfort for families, such as bathrooms. • Safe crossings are important • Off-board fare collection is important since providing exact change on the regular bus service currently is difficult. Other Comments: • Many students in the area (Highway 99) need to take 2 buses to get to school. Better bus service is needed in the area to serve students • The stop at Garfield is always full – standing room only Affordable Housing Listening Session This session was aimed at understanding the needs of those that use affordable housing and shelter facilities and how they utilize transit for mobility. Participants included key staff at affordable housing agencies, such as St. Vincent de Paul, Homes for Good, Cornerstone and Sheltercare. Evaluation Criteria: • Transit Travel Time Savings– this criteria was noted as important, but no specific comments were provided about it. • Investments in Corridors with Disadvantaged Populations– this criteria was noted as important as many of the affordable housing facilities and residents using section 8 vouchers are transit dependent. • Bike and Pedestrian Access and Safety Improvements – sidewalks • Safety on bus – harassment occurs. Safety is needed. Consider ‘Cahoots’ person. Safer environment on the bus would increase ridership. Consider for key hours and routes. • Support Development and Redevelopment – this criteria was noted as important, but no specific comments were provided about it. February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 47 Investment Options: • Highway 99 is less dense in terms of housing but is low income (many living in hotels), no employment density – need to travel to get to jobs (most important for higher level of investment). Needs multi-modal improvements the most • Coburg needs more transit access because of housing concentration (Market District Commons on 5th Street) (second most important for higher level of investment) • River Road has concentrated housing and proposed new transit station – needs sidewalks for people using strollers (second most important for higher level of investment due to higher level of ridership, existing transitional housing and current lack of sidewalks) • MLK has a new housing development (Alton Park and Willamette Gardens) • Highway 99 needs service to Winco • Highway 99 and Railroad – it’s been complicated to build affordable housing projects in this area, but there are many voucher holders in this area. Need to make shopping and employment accessible to those in this area • 30th to LCC – is scary now; worried about increased traffic. Need safer crossings. LCC is growing (free tuition) Other Comments: • Consider a shopping cart sharing program for transit (many people save up money to take a cab/uber to get groceries because they can’t carry it all on the bus) • Walkable, safe, accessible environments are important (important criteria for HUD funding for affordable housing projects) • Bascom Housing site is a good location for future outreach, as is Fox Hollow. • Housing Developments in west Eugene (Village Oaks and Redwood Park) are using EmX – might be a good opportunity for communications (what’s working and what’s not) • Consider outreach to Trillium CAC • Consider engaging the Resident Advisory Board with Homes for Good (Wakan is the contact) February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 48 Appendix 5: All General Comments • I appreciated getting to see what LTD is thinking at the open house the other night. I have a bit of feedback and couldn't find a place to enter it there. What I wanted to see was an analysis of which of all the corridor options was likely to create the greatest carbon reduction...in all aspects. I asked an LTD employee this question and they looked me in the eye and said the data had been analysed and that all the options had the same outcome for carbon reduction. I find that ridiculous and frankly, insulting. There is simply no conceivable way they all come out equally in that regard. Although I might love to have emx on my corridor, I want the greatest outcome for the expenditure. If that's in another part of town, so be it. I am certain I am not alone in wanting to see this as my #1 consideration in the decision making process. Can you please pass this along to whomever needs to see it. • Hello. I'm glad these traffic concerns are being addressed. I live off of Oakway Road and ride my bike most of the time. Here are some issues I encounter: o 1. When driving south on Oakway Road during the afternoon, the traffic gets very backed up and I often can sit through 3 light changes before I am able to turn onto Coburg Road or Southwood Lane. When biking, cars will inch out and block the bike lane which is dangerous and annoying. o 2. The intersection of Coburg Road and the HWY 126 exit is dangerous for many, especially for bikers. More than half the time, cars will run the RED going north on Coburg. Also, when I am on my bike waiting for the light to change, I would estimate 1/3 of drivers are using their cell phones. • Please dont allow the EMX on River Road. Allow the bus to go later instead. • I hereby demand that the Eugene planning commission and lane transit district solicit and consider all feedback from River Road home owners before making any decisions regarding extending the EMX bus plan to River Road or significantly changing the current traffic configuration along River Road. There have been previous surveys that may or may not have been published but must be considered. There has also been a total lack of consideration of public input for previous EMX expansion. There is a small group of highly involved individuals that want to run the show and own our neighborhood plan. Their ideas are not aligned with the overall community based on my experience. Progressing with extreme development on River Road will require adherence to existing laws. These individuals encourage bending of interpretation of existing law to accommodate their personal agendas. There was a public survey that was conducted as part of this process, it makes the most sense to consider the results of that survey as the primary neighborhood input. If the MovingAhead team truly appreciates and considers public input there are opportunities present. Disregarding these opportunities will only further the community perception that public input is nothing but a sham and hurdle to the powers that be. • My self and others have shared at River Road Association meetings that we oppose the EMX bus plan to River Road. Our voices do count. We are active in the community and apart of daily traffic. We use personal automibles, bikes, walk, and take the bus. We would like to see the bus run later in the night. Our friends and family would use the bus more to go down town for dinner and shows, and weekend down town activities. However, there is no bus at these times. February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 49 We would not have to worry about parking. Please come back to community input and put aside your personal agenda to run the show. • I would simply like to stress that the decision made is based on ALL public comment submitted and not simply a few loud voices with their own agenda. I have been involved in several public comment processes recently and have come to find that the agenda has already been set and that the public comment process is simply a hoop that has to be jumped through. River road could use more frequent buses, but adding an entire dedicated lane, reducing the 2 lanes on each side sounds like a nightmare to the people like myself that live on the short streets to the east and west of River Road that already have a terrible time getting out. • I've noticed pedestrian safety to be an issue on Hwy 99. Specifically, I've seen people crossing the highway near St Vincent de Paul's Service Station where there isn't a crosswalk or light. Is construction of an elevated sidewalk within the scope of this project? An alternate, similar solution to protect pedestrians while having minimal effects on traffic flow would also be wonderful. • Re: the North end of River Road- Is there any proposed cyclist/pedestrian crossing the Willamette along the Randy Pape Highway? It seems bizarre that there is currently no crossing the river North of the Greenway, effectively eliminating any bike commuter access across the River. • As a homeowner in the Northeast Eugene Nieghborhood for 39 years, my primary interest is in regard to the Coburg Road Corridor. I have reviewed the Executive Summary, but have not studied the entire report. While the Executive Summary succinctly tabulates and graphically depicts a number of factors associated with the proposed transit, bike and pedestrian improvements, missing is information pertaining to the impact that these improvements will have on automobile trips - specifically travel time. Among the lessons learned from the South Willamette area planning process is the need to convince those who travel this corridor by automobile that safety, convenience and travel time will not be adversely affected on what is an already highly congested thoroughfare. For the MovingAhead project to be successful, this aspect needs to be included in the evaluation process. If the transportation planners can make the Coburg Corridor work better for car drivers as well as for pedestrians, cyclists and bus riders without hurting established neighborhoods and businesses, maybe much of the contention that is so often associated with these public planning projects can be avoided. • I have observed and been a passenger on the new buses on the various routes and I have a comment about them; when choosing which features a bus should have please give heavy consideration to the availability of windows that passenger's may choose to open in order to get fresh air inside the bus! A/C is not sufficient when certain individuals fill the bus with bad odors and everyone has to suffer to breathe it and there is no fresh air to help rid the malodorous offenders. Examples include poor personal hygiene, strong marijuana & tobacco odors, or too strong cologne/perfume. Oftentimes the buses get too stuffy and one is unable to open any windows to get fresh air! • I use a mobility scooter on the bus. The warranty on my scooter is nullified if I back at an incline to board a bus so I cannot ride the older buses because of that. I have to only use the emx buses limiting where I can go on LTD. • Neither your Enhanced Corridor or EmX plans include anything in the Green Acres Rd area. I live in Lakeridge which is a half-mile north of the Delta Oaks shopping center. Lakeridge is 197 February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 50 homes for seniors and another 200 or so homes are being built now just north of us off Ayers Rd. In addition, somewhere around 500 apartments are soon to go in west of the current western termination of Ayers Rd. Because of the ages of most Lakeridge residents and the finances of many apartment residents, it would seem that LTD service in this area would be desirable. I hope you will consider it. • You attended one of our neighborhood association meetings last year, and I asked the question, What about W18th being named a future corridor? Your response was something such as, We have no plans for now; maybe somewhere down the road. Was that supposed to be a joke, or what? My question back was, What are you waiting for, for it to get even more congested, more dangerous? Have you been on W18th since the W Eugene EmX construction began? Have any of you sat at the new EmX stop at W11th & Bailey Hill Rd and seen the traffic backed up from W11th all the way up to W18th - both lanes, even when it isn't a busy-at the-high-school time or a work rush-hour time? Any of you sat at that same stop or been on the #78 bus and seen where it's trying to make a left from W11th onto Bailey Hill Rd but must sit through 2, maybe 3 left- hand turn signal lights, before it gets the green turn arrow? Here was an opportunity for the City to at least bring W 18th into consideration, into the discussion, and the City limped out. How long before that discussion happens? • Why isn't there a single tax paying person represented on the committee chock full of government employees and politicians? None of you people represent me or the over taxed citizens. All of your salaries are paid by us hard working taxpayers that you don't even think that you have to listen to us. Why can't the working person get representation? • Concerning the bustling coming up Coburg road, it would seem if you look carefully at the amount of new apartments north of Crescent Avenue, it would seem more reasonable to have the bus stops closer to Crescent, like by the Eugene Tennis and Racquet Club and Shopko, rather than having the apartment people have to come down to the extremely busy Chad Drive area. There could be a crosswalk with a blinking light, which would actually slow the traffic on Coburg road. This would help in many ways, since homes in the subdivision off Chad drive would be affected. • We need to cover EVERY bus stop with a bench at EVERY one. I mean to put a bench with a cover at EVERY bus stop. This allows EVERYBODY to use them. Many people use the bus because they cannot walk long distances. EVERY stop should be available. And, nobody should HAVE TO stand in the rain for a city bus! I'm sure that I'm not the ONLY one that wants this for Eugene. • Why is the 30th and LCC Corridor open house at the Library? That’s not convenient for residents in the area. Why not South Eugene High School or Amazon Community Center? • I LOVE the EMX buses. They’re super fun to ride on, and the fact that they have a higher seating capacity means I never have to stand. In addition to that, the swirly movey part is really fun to be in. I enjoy them very much, and hope that everyone else does as well. • Why is there no open house for the neighborhoods near the EMX. Would also be nice to have a downtown Open House, which is the easiest area for most bus riders to get to. • Enough with the spokes. Run a loop around town so we can use your system. How many thousands of people aren’t using your system because they have to visit both downtown Eugene and Springfield to get to work. People who live outside the downtown areas and work outside the downtown areas shouldn’t have to spend hours touring downtown to get to their destination. Run a bus line from Walmart on West 11th to Peace Health, on Beltline, making February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 51 stops at Barger, River Road, Green Acres, and Coburn. You’ll pick up a lot of hospital staff that aren’t willing to ride for hours instead of drive for 15 minutes. Yes I understand it’ll cost money, but you just spent $15 billion to replace an existing bus route. Also you already have the infrastructure at Walmart on W 11th, at River Road and at RiverBend. Seriously this is something you could do that the community would appreciate. • Thank you for your response, and for pointing me to the the P.M. Peak Hour Study Intersection Performance Table 9-5 in the full study - specifically in regard to the Coburg Corridor. After reviewing the tabulated data pertaining to “Delay” time, I offer the following observations and concerns. Fifteen intersections were evaluated in this corridor. Under existing conditions, the average delay at these intersections is 26 seconds. In the 2035 No-Build alternative, the average delay increases to 34 seconds. The Enhanced Corridor alternative actually slightly reduces the delay time compared to the No-Build alternative to just over 32 seconds. The EmX alternative, however, increases the average delay time to just over 43 seconds. Delays created by the Enhanced Corridor alternative are longer than the No-Build alternative at nine of the 15 or 60% of the intersections (#27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 35, 36, 39, 40), and they are longer than those created by the EmX alternative at four intersections (#32, 35, 36, 40). The differences may not be much at each intersection, but every delay adds up when traveling through the corridor. Additionally, four of the intersections (#30, 31, 32, 37) will not meet current level of service standards. The EmX alternative causes even longer delays. Eleven of the 15 or 73% of the intersections (#27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39) will experience delays longer than the No-Build alternative, and 10 of the 15 or 67% (#27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37, 38, 39) will be delayed longer than they would in the Enhanced Corridor alternative. Notably, the delay at the Coburg Road/Country Club Road/MLK, Jr. Boulevard intersection (#30) increases significantly by over 93 seconds when compared to existing conditions (127.3 seconds vs 34.0 seconds). In the No-Build alternative, three intersections (#30, 31,32) will not meet current level of service standards, and of these, one (#37) will not meet future Eugene standards. In the Enhanced Corridor alternative, all four of these intersections do not meet current standards but will meet future standards. In the EmX alternative, one intersection (#32) will not meet current standards, and the other three (#30, 31, 37) will not meet future standards. From my perspective, with more design engineering given to improvements that accommodate future increases in automobile traffic, the Enhanced Corridor alternative may be able to provide safe, convenient and timely movement for ALL modes of transportation … but I doubt that the Coburg Corridor can realistically accommodate the EmX alternative to the satisfaction of those who live, work and travel along this thoroughfare. • Does LTD have an APP with maps that allow the user, me to locate how to plan a ride from, say Crescent & Coburg Road to , say the ends of the travel routes' lines.? Thank you. I wish to use LTD more frequently to go places. • Hello- I went to the October 1st listening session you guys held for LTD/the city. • I'm recently on the board for Jefferson Westside Neighbors (one of the neighborhood associations of Eugene) but am also in touch with some people on Bethel's board who are interested in the happenings on HWY 99. I wanted to get an idea of the timeline for this process. I understand it's been going for a few years, but is now getting to the point where public is being more involved and investment options are being seriously considered. I understand you have more public outreach in 2019. Is this true? What specifically will that entail? There's been talk of getting feedback from neighbors of preferences for the various investment options in Bethel & February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 52 JWN regarding the HWY 99 corridor. I wanted to know if any changes to the investment options are going to occur prior to getting feedback to neighbors regarding those investment options. Also, wanting to know when decisions are going to be made for which investments the city is going to be making. One other thing, I know some people in Bethel are very interested in what specific pedestrian and bike improvements are being made. Are a lot of the fine details in the alternatives analysis? Are the specifics of pedestrian / bike improvements likely to change prior to actual investment? Thanks for any info / your help. • We received a call in the City Manager’s Office about the scheduling of a recent open house, which happened to occur during a Jewish holiday and prevented many in the Jewish community from attending. The caller pointed out the 30th to LCC corridor is in proximity to 2 Jewish institutions and a Jewish neighborhood, where many would like to participate in this process. He said it would be appreciated if future scheduling could take into consideration Jewish holidays. He suggested you could reach out to those in the neighborhood or the Jewish institutions for assistance in finding workable dates. Paul Conte called at 2:50 on 9/13/18 to say he appreciated the clear and direct responses to his questions. He did not have concerns with either Highway 99 option based on his current understanding. He did note that it might be interesting to have a better understanding of the final capital costs on the WEE segment that the Highway 99 and River Road Corridor EmX Alternatives would run on in order to be able to explain the full benefit of using that infrastructure for multiple corridors. He is not requesting that analysis be complete at this time. He again complimented the clear communication and his appreciation that the project has clearly incorporated JWN feedback. He noted that this is contributing to building trust with LTD. • After leaving the meeting (of course) I thought of a couple of extra thoughts on the Key Messages document. I was pleased to discover that, during the meeting, discussions of transportation methods often included persons using mobility devices. In the Key Messages document, however, this category of users is left out, particularly in the "Safe, Accessible Transportation Systems for Everyone" category. I'm assuming this is because they are included in the "foot" category. So I don't know if it is necessary to include a separate category for persons using mobility devices if it would overly complicate what is supposed to be an overview document, but if there were some way to capture them, it could add to the inclusivity of the document. • About a year ago I became aware of the proposed “Santa Clara Community Transit Center” located south of Hunsaker Lane and north of Green Lane in Santa Clara. At that time I thought the project was in the planning phase. Just recently I learned that public hearings were held about the proposed transit center in April and June of 2017. I looked on the internet and found the Eugene Council Bill 5176 notes for the June 2017 public hearing. I am unhappy with myself for not knowing about the April 2017 and June 2017 public meetings in that I believe that some of the information presented at the June meeting was not accurate and I could have made those points known at the public hearings. In particular I am referring to the reasoning given in Bill 5176 that the proposed transit center will not significantly impact an existing or planned transportation facility (Goal 12 – Transportation). Exhibit A of the Bill notes that a worst case scenario was conducted and it showed that there would be a decline in the number of PM (I assume they mean evening?) peak hour trips (I assume when compared to placing a commercial development?). I believe the scenario used is not providing the real impact to the traffic along February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 53 River Road. What would accurately portray the impacts is a traffic study/analysis of the current traffic flow as well as the future traffic flow and then compare those results (driving times and road capacity) to the expected traffic associated with the proposed transit center, for both AM and PM scenarios. Additional buses and a light at Green Lane in my option will have significant impact to traffic along River Road in the AM as well as the PM hours. Moving the transit center north from its current location will not increase ridership on the buses so the number of automobiles will not be reduced with the change in location. In fact, more buses north of Beltline along River Road, the additional 56 housing units, and the two commercial buildings in the complex will increase traffic along River Road. Driver times will increase due to increased congestion and River Road will likely exceed capacity for longer periods of time. In my opinion it is prudent that the traffic analysis be redone using the above recommended parameters. It is the professional responsibility of LTD and your engineers to represent to the public the realistic present and future impacts of your proposal. It is not sufficient to just state the expected difference between a commercial development and a transit center. Thank for your time and consideration. • Will Northeast Eugene Miss Out on EMX? Moving Ahead is an LTD/City project that has been looking at transit improvements along Eugene’s five major corridors. It's now evaluating different possible investment packages. The lowest cost one leaves Coburg Road and Northeast Eugene out entirely. The other four corridors get funded in all the packages (River Road, Highway 99, MLK, 30th Avenue). It doesn’t make sense. We’ve had the fastest growth in the City. Coburg has three major shopping areas. Chad Drive has become a business hub. We have a raft of medical facilities. Why are we being left behind again? The Coburg route, if it does get included, would run from downtown over the Ferry Street Bridge, head up Coburg to make a right on Crescent, make a right on Shadow View and then left on Chad, and finally go over to Gateway Mall. If you do want improved transit services here, speak up or we won’t get it. We’ll have several opportunities: o The nearest outreach event is very soon: Tuesday, June 26 in Willakenzie Park from ??? to ??? o Lots of other events all over town: listed below. o An online Open House: starts in August. Get on the mailing list for it at http://MovingAhead.org. Specifics are at http://MovingAhead.org (EMX vs “Enhanced Corridors,” five alternative investment packages, detailed maps). We want MovingAhead to hear that we need better transit out here. Don’t cut us out. • We hear that our recent suggestion (to delay any final decision on MovingAhead until Transit Tomorrow results in a preferred future transit network) is generating some internal staff discussion. Remembering the politics around EmX West, we also believe that it will take more than a few months to develop a broad community consensus around a preferred MovingAhead investment package, in particular, to get a majority of the Eugene mayor & city council to agree to the same package. We hope that a modest delay in finalizing MovingAhead will also provide time for the Eugene City Council to engage more robustly and for a broad agreement to emerge. If you have questions or concerns, please let us know and we are happy to say more in person. For now, I will share that almost since we helped gain approval for EmX West back in 2012, BEST has consistently advocated for a Jarrett Walker style "big look" at the transit network. With both MovingAhead and the Main McVay Transit Study, we have stressed the need to not make February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 54 decisions in isolation, but rather in the larger context of LTD's overall service. In 2014, we conducted a series of community conversations, leading us to formalize these recommendations and to hold a press conference late that year calling for such a "big look." In late 2016, as you know, we invited Jarrett Walker to speak at a community event. And more recently, we have supported steps LTD is taking with Transit Tomorrow. A few weeks ago, Pat Hocken and Mike Eyster published a guest viewpoint summarizing BEST's thinking about how to improve the transit system: http://www.registerguard.com/opinion/20180708/nows-time-to-chart- transportations-future And tomorrow at the LTD board meeting, we plan to distribute copies of our community conversations report, substantially completed in 2014 and updated in 2016. We have waited until now to do so because we wanted to be able to thank LTD for already substantially adopting the recommendations of that report. Before tomorrow, you can read the executive summary here: http://www.best-oregon.org/ccreport/ In general, BEST strives to be a cautious and deliberative coalition. When we do come out with recommendations, we do our best to first vet these internally. And our recommendations are often more around process than substance, as we prefer to delay any substantive recommendations — for example, our ideas for a preferred MovingAhead investment package — until we have had an opportunity to weigh the available analysis. But for now, I will give you an additional heads up that BEST will be looking for whatever decision to come out of MovingAhead to reflect a strong story — a strong WHY — for making a significant public investment. General speaking, such a story will be rooted less in detailed technical analysis and more in terms of large drivers, in particular, opportunities to significantly increase ridership, and relatedly opportunities to support significant mixed-use and transit-oriented higher-density development. In other words, we will be looking for the results of MovingAhead to significantly advance the outcomes of Transit Tomorrow and Envision Eugene. • Westside Neighbors (JWN) opposes any future segment of EmX or other non-conventional mass transit being located on a street, excepting W. 7th Ave., within or adjacent to the area encompassed by the JWN boundaries." (The full motion is attached.) What is critical is to not misrepresent that the JWN unequivocally "oppos[ed] any EmX improvements within the neighborhood boundaries." A critical element of the JWN's position was the need for "amendments to the Westside Neighborhood Plan that address the implementation of non- conventional mass transit." The Eugene Planning Division has thus far not supported a refinement plan amendment process; however, the organization's official position remains ready and willing to undertake that process. As I'm sure you'll appreciate, there are individuals and at least one organization that feel free to mischaracterize JWN members as "NIMBY's," and it's important that LTD not unwittingly provide misinformation that these parties can promulgate to serve their own interests. * * * * * As a general comment, applicable to all alternatives, on page 3-11, I found the following statement: "For potential indirect impacts (such as supportive of TOD implementation) a 0.25-mile radius from fixed-route stops for the Enhanced Corridor Alternatives, and a 0.5-mile radius from proposed EmX stations for the EmX Alternatives is used. The 0.25-mile study area around proposed fixed-route stops and the 0.5 mile study area around proposed EmX stations are based on the maximum reasonable distances bus and EmX customers are likely to walk to reach transit." I think three things need to be addressed so that the public and decision makers do not draw the wrong conclusions: 1. There needs to be a full and "transparent" description of the justification for why the area from which February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 55 riders are likely to walk to an EmX station is FOUR TIMES as large as the area from which riders are likely to walk to a fixed-route stop. (Area of a circle = π times radius-squared, so doubling the radius quadruples the area.) This seems like an extreme ratio. 2. It's not clear whether the area for a "fixed-route stop" refers to "no build" (current service) or "Enhanced Service." That needs to be clarified. 3. There should be a clear "asterisked" note for the following figures (in the "Executive Summary" that explains that the larger numbers for EmX are partially (or completely?) the result of a larger areas from which riders, jobs and population are counted: Systemwide Annual Ridership Increase and Existing Jobs & Population Served Thank you again for the help that you and your staff are providing. Please feel free to call me or Ted, if you'd like to discuss any of these items. • I'm forwarding you a copy of questions that I submitted during the open comment period. The first three are simple and would not require any significant staff time to address. I recognize that the final question/request may involve some additional analysis by staff. This is the one to which I want to draw your attention. Some of you may recall that towards the end of the review and approval process for the West Eugene EmX (WEE) route, I produced alternative financial and benefits analyses that were in large measure the reason that the Eugene City Council voted unanimously for the W. 6th & 7th Aves. alignment over the LTD staff recommended W. 11th & 13th Aves. alignment. The crux of the alternative analyses was to look at the costs and benefits allocated across potential future Highway 99 and River Road EmX routes sharing the WEE infrastructure along W. 6th and 7th Aves out to Garfield St. We are now at the point where both of those routes are among the final "alternatives" to be considered. LTD staff needs to provide several "net" analyses of a similar sort so that the public and decision makers can get a more appropriate understanding of how various decisions regarding the Hwy 99 and River Road alternatives might play out over time. I want to make clear that I personally don't have any predisposition regarding any of the four alternatives for these two routes, including whether or how these might be determined for future implementation. My only request at this time is that you direct staff to provide the requested analyses in time for the public to be able to review and comment. I've copied the current JWN Chair, Ted Coopman, so that he is kept apprised of additional facts. • I found the survey disappointing. I wonder if the meeting conveyed things better. The hub and spoke still seems the only thing being focused on What about across Beltline. Also very curious what EmX upriver road would look like for my trip which right now is #51 pick up at scenic just before turning on Spring creek I assume it would be a two bus ride to get to downtown How long is it estimated to take... Tabling and Presentation Events 350.org Eugene (3/23): • Comments were generally supportive of transit and the MovingAhead project. Attendees encouraged LTD and the City of Eugene to emphasize the potential to reduce climate change in decision-making. Party in the Parks – Tugman (6/19): February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 56 • Are we reaching out to minority communities? Fairfield Elementary holds events for Spanish speaking populations on Hwy 99. • Wants longer bike racks on LTD buses (says the EMX bike racks are perfect.) Wants this so her accessible bike can fit. • Bus Fares/passes. Prepaid card. Change return on EMX? Breakfast on the Bridges (6/29): • Went to Breakfast on the Bike Bridges at Greenway bridge and spoke to maybe 15 people in any depth about MovingAhead. Most were familiar with the project, and a few signed up for the email list who were not already. Most interest was geared towards River Road concepts and was generally supportive, with most interest in bike/ped concepts. Sunday Streets Downtown (7/30): • We tabled at Sunday Streets Downtown for the duration of the event. We spoke with an estimated 50 people about the project. Many people stopped by the booth and took project fact sheets. People who stopped by were generally supportive and desired to be engaged. Party in the Parks (8/7): • Better improved intersections and some more. Too many jaywalkers. First Friday Artwalk/Fiesta Cultural (9/7): • There were several hundred members of the public at the event. We spoke to approximately 50. We explained the basics of the project and directed interested parties to visit MovingAhead.org the following week to read the published Alternative Analysis. We also answered questions about specific corridors. Event attendees were generally positive about capital investments along all corridors. Several individuals wanted to see EmX on all corridors. Several individuals expressed concern about the cost of investments. Several event attendees were curious about our Spanish listening session and were glad that we were doing outreach in Spanish. Northeast Neighborhoods Group (9/7): Roughly 80 people attended the meeting at Gilham Community. Presentation of Coburg Road Findings. Q and A: • Q - Does the Enhanced Corridor include a protected bikeway? • A - No, Coburg Rd is too constrained. • Q - there been study of a loop that would use Coburg Rd - Gateway - and Harlow Rd? • A - Yes, but current land uses and ridership don't support a Harlow Rd segment at this time. • Q - Why doesn't public transit travel north of Cresent on Coburg Rd? • A - There is the route that goes all the way to the City of Coburg. This is also part of the discussion for a project called Transit Tomorrow. • Q - I would like to see how much travel time would be added to the trips of all car drivers based on these changes? February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 57 • A - Pointed out that on Coburg Rd there are improvements for cars based on the need to get them out of the way of buses. Information about intersection performance is also in the AA Transportation Chapter. • Q - Can you speak to existing EmX routes and whether they are meeting expectations? • A - Franklin is doing well. EmX West is doing well. We just reduced frequency on Gateway. As a whole they are meeting expectations. • Q - In the middle of the day I notice a lot of empty buses or one person on them - why is this? • A - Depends where you are on a bus route. If you are at the end of the route, it is likely the bus doesn't have a lot of people on it. Friday Art Walk (9/17): • Keep 78 on Oak Patch. Route it to go to Eugene Station. Concers of drugs in front of EmX/Elderly have to be in the back. Need evening and weekend, like the old 30. Drivers breaking hard is dangerous. SE Neighborhood Picnic (9/18): • 82 bus gets stuck at light turning left at 30th. Save 82! Need covered bus stops on Tamarak Wellness Route 24. • 24 predictable, great drivers, convenient. • LCC bus route is very important. • Crosswalk for ADA accessbility 34th and Donald. Eugene Chamber Local Government Affairs Committee (10/3): • The funding questions asked were about where funding would come from for capital investment as well as questions about how ongoing operation would be funded. The return on investment question was about how it would be factored into decision-making. Operators Lounge Tabling (10/3-10/4): • Where the bike lane is in-between the BAT lane (Queue jump) and a travel lane – that is really difficult both for bus operators and bike riders (30th/LCC EmX Alt and River Road EC). • EMX doesn’t make sense on 30th – it does on River Road and Coburg. • BAT lanes are really challenging because auto drivers don't know how to use them. • Need more consistency/congruency with EmX, including station height, where you need to stop at the station, and priority transit signal call. • River Road needs EmX – 51 and 52 are a nightmare to ride. • Why don’t we have a Downtown station – LCC – UO express bus? • Don’t think the level of investment is necessary on Hwy 99 – land use is too spread out right now. The ridership isn’t very high. There are a lot of mobility devices on the corridor however. • Mixed feelings on Coburg Rd. • Hwy 99 – EmX on Cubit Street would be really tight – cars park on both sides and we can’t even get a 40 ft February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 58 • On Hwy 99 – there are a lot of customers with disabilities that depend on Route 41 service – behind Putters. • The pedestrian signals on Hwy 99 would be great – really needed – especially at the Eugene Service Station • 30th/LCC and 99 don’t need EmX. River Road EmX should be the top priority. Then Coburg Rd. • General safety concerns and recommendations: • Need more monitors on the buses to see blind spots. • -Yield sign – it’s the law sticker would help. If the LEDs were red instead of yellow they are easier to notice. • Need more “No smoking signs” • General comments about different routes in LTD's service area: • -58th and Main Street – left turn to go north used to have a guarded left turn east – the flashing arrow really screws that up. • -Seneca and West 11th – Route 78 – signal timing is all screwed up.(Seneca Station onto W 11th.) • Coming in bound the bus pole sign says – UO to Eugene Station (but it doesn’t do Eugene Station except evening) – The stop coming inbound on the 81 right before Hilyard doesn’t have an Route 81 sticker. • Need a bigger “do not turn” sign at that turn pocket by the Market of Choice – too many crashes. • There is a section on Franklin Blvd where the trees are in the way of the light. The • Also the EmX signals – it would be helpful if the lights (especially the caution light) was a different color. When it is dark and raining it is really difficult to see. • At the Q Street intersection in Springfield cars are constantly turning in front of the bus. Active Transportation Committee: • One member asked what safety metrics were being used in evaluating if the corridors are being made safer. Chris replied that staff is not using crash analysis, but the alternatives include investments in safer crossings, which should result in safer outcomes. Other funds can also be used to invest in safety projects and not wait until the Federal Transit Administration provides funding for MovingAhead investments. Local funds are more scalable and flexible. • One member indicated that Maxwell Road improvements have been identified as a priority for ATC and asked if the MovingAhead project could fund those improvements. Chris said that other local funds would have to be used on Maxwell Road. • One member asked if other technologies were being considered in MovingAhead and could these funds be used as part of these investments. Chris said that the 2035 Transportation System Plan has language to look at new technologies such as electric and autonomous vehicles use in Eugene. He said we need to do a lot of things to achieve the goals of tripling the number of people who walk, bike, or take the bus. February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 59 • One member said a lot of the five corridors are high crash corridors and we need to consider ways to reduce vehicle speeds. He added that protected bike lanes improve safety and comfort for users. • An audience member asked if EmX is a precursor to light rail. Chris said that idea is not part of the MovingAhead process. • One member asked if these corridors go into downtown Eugene, because it isn’t comfortable riding her bike in the downtown area and she would like to see improvements in this area as part of MovingAhead. Chris said all of the corridors go into downtown Eugene. • One member said that many people cross Franklin Blvd. at non-intersections. Chris said that Eugene will hire a consultant to help staff with improvements on that corridor. Lee added that Larisa Varela will be coming to ATC this year to talk about that project. Latino Professionals Connect (11/5): • Comments ranged from general interest in participating in city, community and other civic opportunities to building relationships and capacity within the Latino community. Other comments centered around the importance of transit access for connecting people to employment, especially those with disabilities. Appendix 6: Letters from Cowboy’s Savannah LLC August 13, 2018 Sasha Luftig, Senior Project Manager Lane Transit District P.O.Box 7070 Springfield, OR 97475-0470 Sasha.Luftig@LTD.org Chris Henry, Transportation Planning Engineer City of Eugene Public Works 101 E. Broadway, Suite 400 Eugene, OR 97401 Chris.C.Henry@ci.eugene.or.us Zach Galloway, Senior Planner City of Eugene Planning and Development February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 60 Atrium Building 99 W lOth Ave. Eugene, OR 97401 Zach.A.Galloway@ci.eugene.or.us Dear Ms. Luftig, Mr. Henry, and Mr. Galloway: This firm represents Cowboy's Savannah LLC, the owner of the property located at 74 E. 181 Ave. in Eugene. As the owner of real property located at 74 E. 181 Ave. Eugene, Oregon, our client received a letter dated June 27, 2018 from the MovingAhead Project Management Team. The letter stated that the MovingAhead team wanted the opportunity to speak with those property owners that may be affected by potential roadway changes. However, very little to no substantive information was provided in the June 27, 2018 letter. It was not until July 11, 2018 during a phone conversation with a member of the MovingAhead team that it was made known that LTD and the MovingAhead team was proposing the use of its eminent domain powers to take part of our client 's property located at 74 E. 18th Ave. As described over the phone to our client, the potential impact to the property in question would be roughly 0.014 acres, over 600 square feet. Because of the nature of the property, the impact will be significant and the associated cost to LTO in an eminent domain action may be much greater than LTO currently anticipates. The placement of any bus stop, requiring the taking of private property, would without question be far more expensive for LTD than constructing the proposed stop at any number of more viable sites in the immediate vicinity of 74 E. 18th Ave, including at an already existing stop. Not only would the impact to the local community, businesses, and property owners be drastically reduced by placing the new stop across 18th Ave., but such a decision would also save LTD and the MovingAhead project a significant amount of money. As part of any taking through eminent domain powers, LTD would be required to pay the fair market value for the portion of the property taken. The property in question is situated in such a way that the proposed taking would result in a partial taking of the structure itself, requiring significant construction and rebuilding to meet city zoning and safety requirements. Any and all costs associated with such work would of course make up only one component of what LTO would have to pay in a condemnation proceeding. In addition to the fair market value and construction costs, LTO would be on the hook for any and all lost profits associated with the taking. It can reasonably be anticipated that the property would face a serious loss of business and profits as a result of any reduction in office space, as well as the general loss of business due to the increased noise, smell, and unwanted activity on the property that is associated with a bus stop being built immediately in front of a professional office building. February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 61 Those tenants located on and facing Oak St. will be forced to relocate, either temporarily or permanently, due to the partial taking of the structure itself and reduction of leasable office space. Beyond the lost income from the loss of office space, the property will face the very real threat of losing tenants as a result of the increased noise, pollution, and other general problems associated with a bus stop of this nature, likely resulting in increased tenant turnover and unmarketability of the office spaces and property as a whole. Notably, several of the offices on my client 's property are occupied by psychologists and medical care professionals, whose businesses in particular would be significantly disturbed by the increased noise and trespass associated with a bus stop of this nature. All of these costs will be included in my client 's ultimate demand and inevitable lawsuit associated with LTD's attempted taking. Moreover, the placement of a bus stop of this nature on the south side of 18th Ave. will create a serious hindrance on the ability of motorists traveling down Oak St. to turn left onto 18th Ave., a major artery of the downtown area. Motorists will have to contend with an increase in pedestrians crossing 18th Ave., as well as contending with EMX buses departing the station heading north on Oak St. This has the very real possibility of creating serious traffic delays throughout the day for anyone heading from South Eugene to the downtown area. Fortunately, several alternative options exist in the immediate area. These alternative options would not only cost LTD significantly less than the proposed bus stop location, but would also have a drastically reduced impact on the area its businesses. For instance, just across 18th Ave. next to the Safeway, a bus stop already exists. Even if expansion of this stop were necessary, the impact on the surrounding businesses would be significantly less. The Safeway building is a brick warehouse with no windows looking directly onto the bus stop. Furthermore, both Safeway and Hirons Rx would likely welcome this bus stop as it would drive an increase in foot traffic and make it easier for many of its customers to access their respective businesses. Alternatively, directly across from the Safeway is a Les Schwab Tire Center. Any required partial taking of the Les Schwab property as a result of the construction of this bus stop would simply result in the taking of parking spaces, not offices or commercial space. As such, the partial taking on the Les Schwab property would cost LTD significantly less than the partial taking of an existing structure, and would not result in reduction of business as it would if placed at 74 E. 18th Ave. A third option available to LTD is to place the proposed bus stop at 1710 Oak St., a small shopping center just north of the Les Schwab Tire Center. Much like the creation of a bus stop at the Les Schwab Tire Center, the shopping center would likely lose at most a small amount of on- site parking, while gaining valuable foot traffic and access to those customers who do not have motor vehicles. As with the other two alternative sites for the stop, the placement of a stop at 1710 Oak St. would come with significantly less costs to LTD, while resulting in a gain for February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 62 the property, or at the very least, result in minimal negative impacts as compared to the proposed stop at 74 E. 18th Ave. A stop at one of these locations risks little disturbance relative to the disturbance this would cause if located directly in front of my client's professional office building. It is entirely unclear why these options would be bypassed and instead located in a manner so as to destroy portions of my client 's property, the businesses ran by the tenants of the property, and by extension the value of the property, especially when the diminution in value is going to be the responsibility of LTD (in addition to the hard costs incurred in construction). Our client welcomes the extension of the bus line and the addition of a bus stop in the area, but the placement of such a stop in its proposed location is unrealistic. It will cost LTD and the MovingAhead project significantly more money than if located just across the street. Perhaps more importantly than the cost to LTD and ultimately the tax-payers, placing such a bus stop on the other side of 18111 Ave. will have far less negative impact on the area and its businesses. We ask that the decision-makers of this project exhaust all alternatives, including consideration of the three options presented herein for the new stop, before proceeding with what will have a massively destructive impact on our client's property, and ultimately cost LTO significant sums in the associated condemnation action. We look forward to your prompt response. Josh K. Smith (541) 686-8833 I Fax (541) 345-2034 I gleaveslaw.com Joshua K. Smith jsmith@gleaveslaw.com Date: October 7, 2018 TO: LTD, Eugene City transportation Planning Department staff, Eugene City Council and MovingAhead.Org FROM: Eric Vance, Principal of Cowboy’s Savannah LLC 74 East 18th Avenue Owner, South Eugene Professional Plaza COMMENT: Comment on proposed LLC transit corridor Dear LTD, Eugene City transportation Planning Department staff, Eugene City Council, and nondescript regional partners, February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 63 My comments will be directed to the proposed LLC transit corridor and most specifically the EMX rapid transit option. The LLC corridor, as innocuous as the name sounds is really the Oak Street and Pearl Street corridor for all practical purposes in considering impacts on businesses, traffic and people. This corridor does not service a strip commercial area such as the other current transit corridor proposals do, and West 11th did. There are different considerations for this inner city project that would have significant negative physical impacts to the two remaining “great streets” of the city center. There are relevant planning considerations for the City center that would be applicable for this area. These considerations typically would be less inconsequential for strip commercial areas. Oak and Pearl Streets have existing on street parking, mature street trees and a desirable neighborhood ambiance that would be worth preserving. Such considerations would include reference to the seven planning pillars of Envision Eugene, preservation of the “great streets” concept and various other planning goals in the South Eugene subarea Study, Commercial Lands Study and the Metro plan. If there is a common planning theme within all the planning documents and studies mentioned above it pertains to enhancing livability, economic resources and preservation and natural resources, which are sub-sets of livability. Oak and Pearl Streets have these characteristics in spades. The Eugene City center core is effectively a tiny 10 blocks square. A commercially contiguous area 4 blocks wide projects the city’s center another 5 blocks to the south ending at 19th Avenue. This area includes Oak Street and Pearl Street. This area is often referred to as mid- town and combined with the city core comprises the greater downtown commercial area designated as such in the Metro Plan. Additional commercial areas radiate from the city center following major arterial streets in an attempt to provide additional commercial and high density mixed use services for a city with a population of 190,000 persons. This linear commercial development is limited in physical scope and is referred to as strip commercial. The development of these commercial corridors typically does not resemble the form or function of a city center. Strip commercial areas have a valuable commercial function but do not form the heartbeat of a city. The Metro Plan document reinforces that “Downtown Eugene is the heartbeat of activity in Lane County “. It is further stated that “Two central themes run throughout this document. First, the City will reinforce downtown Eugene as a strong regional center. City officials will work closely with property owners, developers and community members to bring about a diverse, dense and economically strong urban center. The ECL Study explored characteristics that are common to commercial viability and that influence commercial development. In the ECL Study Section I-9 it was mandated that Downtown “remain an active commercial center.” On street parking for servicing small businesses is important for Oak and Pearl Street. On Street parking is proposed to be substantially removed in the proposed LLC EMX option. Current LTD bus service works February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 64 wonderfully well for these streets for some persons accessing these businesses or for some to continue to downtown. Policy 23.0 in this Section states “Foster the development of attractive and functional commercial areas that not only increase property values, but enhance Eugene’s reputation as a pleasant, productive, and attractive community in which to live or do business. Recognize that innovative building designs and neighborhood-enhancing streetscapes especially those designed to accommodate both pedestrian and automobile users with sidewalks, convenient bus stops, and adequate parking are key factors in the success of such developments. An EMX corridor on Oak and Pearl Street would be antagonistic to achieving the goals of this mandate. In fact the existing condition of this area is in perfect compliance with the policy premises already. That’s why this mandate should not be disregarded now for questionable priorities involving efficiency. The reasons behind the LLC corridor are ostensibly to serve the LLC transit rider population. The projects time savings for this ridership population was stated by MovingAhead to be about one minute for the enhanced option and two minutes for the EMX option. In many respects this terribly expensive and disruptive EMX alternative for the LLC corridor is a solution looking for a problem. There is no serious problem with the existing adequate LLC transit regular bus system and with the large Amazon transfer station with park and ride it has worked just fine for south downtown and Civic Stadium. LLC student enrollment has been declining for the last 6 consecutive years. This enrollment may again increase to the earlier levels if the economy declines but still the projection is not for significant long term enrollment increases in the foreseeable future. Associated with the fact that LLC in its rural setting has many acres of onsite parking for the distributed automobile oriented population and has room for unlimited expansion if ever necessary. It is not only the contention of this commenter that the LLC EMX corridor is a overreaching solution for a non-existent problem but the proposal is devoid of a comprehensive understanding of other very important Eugene planning goals. The current proposal is a myopic vision of what makes Eugene more livable. It is simply thinking that moving a particular group of people faster is automatically a more desirable thing compared to other planning goals. It is acknowledged that the lure of free money from the Feds is worth consideration for community improvements to infrastructure. This was apparent in the extreme case for freeway overbuilding in the 50’s and 60’s supplanted by Dwight Eisenhower. Many have heard the LA heartache of please no freeway in my back yard. The myopic perspective of efficiency trumping livability is not new and must be questioned when seen for what it is. It is important to realize that the current LLC EMX proposal substantially changes the character of the last two remaining great streets in Eugene to save LLC student ridership two minutes. This proposal removes 56 metered on street parking spaces on Oak Street and approximately the same on Pearl Street. All total this is well over a hundred on- street parking spaces in front of businesses to be removed and replaced with dedicated EMX travel lanes and transit stops. This proposed corridor also removes street trees and landscaping in 7 long stations on the 8 blocks of Oak and Pearl Streets. This corridor February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 65 requires the taking of private property and the use of eminent domain. This corridor in no respects enhances the beauty and livability in these important 8 linear blocks of downtown and in fact would demolish it. If such a proposal was made for the charming central commercial areas of Corvallis or Bend or even through the middle of the Obie 5th Street complex, where pedestrian sensibilities are preeminent, it would be sent to the trash bin without question. It is obvious that the proposed LLC corridor is an engineering study performed by engineers with an engineer’s perspective. From an engineering standpoint the corridor does provide speedier bus service. That’s all it does. From an Architects perspective it’s an abomination. The proposal was developed by City Planning but more importantly by outside engineering firms whose only relationship to Eugene was via aerial mapping tools. This out of town lifeless plan developed for the LLC corridor exhibits little knowledge of the nature and needs of businesses on Oak and Pearl Street. The nature and needs of the businesses is minimal at best even for the local MovingAhead team. It had been stated recently that design work was preliminary and at the 15% point. The design work so far was ostensibly only to provide material for public input. Not really the case sad to say. The purported preliminary designs are being held onto like a squid on a beach ball. If the MovingAhead team has learned one thing from the completed West 11th project, it is how to say no. The Eugene City Council will decide on the final transit plan to be built as presented by the Transportation Planning Department and LTD. It seems that the City Council would benefit from more involvement at the start of the design process instead of only at the end where designs cannot be economically revised or discarded. Other important City planning goals then could be implemented into any transit design by the Council as ostensibly it is ultimately in charge of seeing the big picture for planning. It is unfortunate that the LTD and MovingAhead mailings of community notice did not include the mention of Oak and Peal Street as an integral part of the LLC corridor, much less the impact on businesses with the removal of on street parking, bus only traffic lanes and removal of significant street trees. Public information booths were held at what would generally be considered alternative lifestyle events, which is fine but a bit like preaching to the choir. The target audience for community notice should include the property owners on Oak and Peal Streets who are the people most effected, but all the people of Eugene ultimately benefit from great streets. It would have been more effective in reaching this important population by including all information in the mailed notice or alternatively communicating with the Eugene Chamber of Commerce, City Club and other business oriented groups. It appears that there was overriding interest in saving paper or maybe ink. All in all the test of effective communication deserves nothing other than an outcome based analysis. In this case few of the business owners on Oak Street and Pearl Street in fact know that they are parcel of the proposed LLC EMX corridor. In summary it is hoped that the LLC EMX option for this transit corridor be wholly abandoned as totally misguided and unnecessary. The consequence of this corridor construction would change the neighborhood character of these two great streets from being a pleasant destination neighborhood to that of being a dedicated corridor to the main transit station. Regular bus service performs reasonably well now and if needed the enhanced corridor option would certainly provide transportation needs beyond 2035 for the stable population inherent with LLC and South Eugene in general. Protect our last vibrant and attractive streets from overzealous overbuild, and in some cases demolition, such has been February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 66 seen in downtown Eugene time and time again. All the City departments of Planning from transportation to urban renewal must get on the same page with written planning policy. Eugene must coordinate a directed focus on Eugene livability and make no more mistakes as seen when a comprehensive planning perspective is abandoned. The consequences of past decisions are adding up for producing a dead City Center if short sighted or narrow focused planning is allowed to go unchecked. In fairness and in contrast it seems that some comprehensive and well thought out planning is finally proceeding with City Hall and the Park Blocks. Sincerely, Eric Vance February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 1 Proposed Investment Packages Purpose: Select five Investment Packages that reflect varying levels of investments and are based on the technical analysis and community feedback. Technical Analysis The technical analysis that was completed for each corridor is detailed in the Alternatives Analysis Report and summarized in the Alternatives Analysis Executive Summary. The technical analysis recommended that the following mode options be considered for the Investment Packages. Table 1: Recommendation on Corridor Alternatives to be Considered for Investment Packages Based on Technical Analysis Alternative Corridor No-Build Enhanced Corridor EmX Highway 99   River Road   30th Ave to LCC    Coburg Road    MLK, Jr. Boulevard   No-Build Alternative: Under the No-Build option, LTD and the City would only make improvements that are already planned as part of other projects for the next ten years. No additional investments would be made as a part of the MovingAhead project A No-Build alternative is included and evaluated in the context of the federal environmental review. While the No-Build alternatives are shown to have no negative effects in the federal context, doing nothing now to enhance walking, biking, and transit use does not help achieve locally adopted policy goals. In the local context, the no-build alternative does have consequences. It should be noted corridors designated for No-Build in the MovingAhead investment packages would be considered for Enhanced Corridor or EmX investment in the future. Enhanced Corridor: The Enhanced Corridor option is intended to improve safety, access, and transit service without requiring major capital investments. This alternative is very flexible and can range from limited improvements to a relatively high level of investments that approach an EmX treatment. Enhanced Corridor service may or may not be branded. While Enhanced Corridor investments have been February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 2 designated for each corridor as part of the MovingAhead planning process, those decisions can be revisited as part of the later more detailed planning that occurs during project development. EmX: EmX is LTD’s branded bus rapid transit (BRT) service and represents a higher level of investment than Enhanced Corridor. Features typically include transit lanes in key locations, enhanced stations with raised platforms and off-board fare collection, transit signal priority, specialized buses, and branding. Evaluation Criteria When considering investment packages that involve improvements to multiple corridors, the evaluation criteria need to be tailored to those that help assess the systemwide benefits of the packages. The criteria for the investment packages are listed below. Many of these were used for the corridor-level evaluation, and some are new criteria.  Acquisitions: The number of properties potentially displaced as a result of the project.  Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements: The proposed investment in bicycle and pedestrian access and safety improvements in each corridor.  Capital Cost: Capital cost includes estimated costs for vehicles, design, construction, right-of- way, and project management. Cost includes $2.5 million for expansion of the LTD maintenance facility.  Consistency with Local Plans and Policies: An assessment of the consistency of the investment package with comprehensive land use and transportation plans and policies and its support for local energy, sustainability and greenhouse gas policies and community safety programs, including Vision Zero.  Investment in Corridors with Disadvantaged Populations: The percentage of the total investment in corridors with greater numbers of low-income and minority people. This is a new measure that only applies to the packages (not individual corridors), since it documents the percentage on the investment for a combination of corridors.  Number/Acreage of Acquisitions: The number and total acreage of properties that would potentially need to be purchased.  Operating Cost: Operating cost is the estimated annual cost to operate and maintain the service. This includes paying operators, vehicle maintenance and fuel, as well as administrative and overhead costs.  Parking Impacts: The number of on-street and off-street parking spaces that may need to be removed.  Potential Property Displacements: The number of properties potentially displaced as a result of the project.  Ridership: Annual transit ridership as projected for the year 2040 using the regional transportation model.  Support for Corridor Development: An assessment of how well the alternative supports corridor development and redevelopment and encourages transit-oriented development.  Support from the Public: The level of public support for the package as determined through community feedback on the Alternatives Analysis. February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 3  Transit Travel Time: Estimate of how long it would take for someone to travel from the end of the line to Eugene Station during the afternoon peak hour (in-vehicle time).  Tree Impacts: The number of medium and large trees which may need to be removed. Community feedback during the comment period for the Alternatives Analysis indicated that the “Number of Jobs and Population Served” was an important criterion. That measure assumed that the catchment area for jobs and people is ¼ mile from a stop/station for conventional bus service (No-Build) and Enhanced Corridor service, and ½ mile from a station for EmX service. That measure is not included as one of the Investment Package criteria because it does not provide significant differentiation between the different packages. Since the No-Build and Enhanced Corridor options use the same catchment area assumptions, Investment Packages A, B, and C, as described later in this memorandum, would have virtually the same totals for numbers of jobs and population served. Return on Investment: ROI Return on Investment (ROI) is a financial/economic measure that is intended to determine the benefit of an investment relative to its cost, and is often calculated as a ratio or percentage that compares net gains to net costs. ROI has been included as a criterion because it is important to understand and communicate the relationship of benefits and costs of the investments that would be implemented as part of MovingAhead. Furthermore, as MovingAhead advances, it is important to consider how the investments included in MovingAhead can help meet multiple objectives, including enhancing the safety of the transportation system (Vision Zero), advancing sustainability and environmental goals , promoting equity, and supporting economic development, and continuously coordinate with partner agencies to achieve our community’s goals. The MovingAhead project does not lend itself to a typical ROI financial metric. Many of the benefits and costs of the corridor investments, such as bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements, support for economic development, and tree impacts are difficult to quantify in dollars. However, the benefits and costs of the MovingAhead investment packages are significant and should be carefully considered when choosing a package and deciding whether to move ahead with the investments. All the investment packages will create short-term construction jobs, with more than 100 direct and induced jobs created for every $10 million of construction. In addition, local and state funds may leverage an equivalent amount of discretionary federal funding which would not otherwise come to this community. Perhaps more importantly, the investments associated with MovingAhead will enhance safety for all modes and provide improved mobility, with more frequent transit service, reduced transit travel time, and new bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Specific to each investment package, the following indicators of some aspects of ROI are included in each package description:  The operating cost per added person trip  The estimated overall travel time saved by riders from the transit improvements (assumes that the average trip length is half the one-way bus route length)  Improvements in transit system reliability  Number of corridors with motor vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian safety improvements.  Acres of vacant transit supportive lands (zoned mixed-use or multifamily residential) within corridor APIs February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 4 Community Feedback Feedback on Criteria Open House attendees were asked to indicate their top five most important criteria. The following figure reflects the number of responses received by each criterion. Figure 1: Most Important Criteria Based on Responses from Open House Attendees Participants on the Online Open House were asked to allocate a limited number of points to the evaluation criteria based on what they perceive to be the most important. Figure 2 indicates the number of responses for each criterion. Figure 2: Most Important Criteria Based on Responses from Online Survey 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Parking Removal Acquistions/Displacements Capital Cost Tree Removal Property Displacement Investment in Disadvantaged Corridors Support for Development Jobs and Population Served Annual Operating Cost Transit Travel Time Ridership Bike/Ped Investments Open House Attendees: Most Important Criteria 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Acquistions/Displacements Parking Removal Property Displacement Tree Removal Capital Cost Support for Development Investment in Disadvantaged Corridors Annual Operating Cost Ridership Jobs and Population Served Transit Travel Time Bike/Ped Investments Online Survey: Most Important Criteria February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 5 There is considerable agreement regarding the criteria between the online respondents and the open house attendees. The top five rated criteria as rated by the two groups are the same, although the order varies. For both groups, the criteria which consider potential benefits, such as bike/pedestrian investments, transit travel time savings, and ridership, were generally rated as more important than the criteria which consider potential adverse impacts, such as acquisitions, property impacts, or parking and tree loss. Operating cost was deemed to be a more important criterion than capital cost by both online and open house survey respondents. Feedback on Alternatives Feedback on the corridor alternatives was solicited from both the open house attendees and those participating in the online survey. Figure 3 indicates the total positive responses for each alternative less the total negative responses (ignoring “neutral” and “not sure” responses). This data is combined for both the online (245 responses) and open house (112 attendees) surveys. Figure 3: Total Positive Less Negative Responses to Corridor Alternatives from Open House and Online Respondents. Figure 4 below provides the average rating for each corridor using the combined responses from the open houses and the online survey. -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150 Highway 99 River Road 30th/LCC Coburg Road MLK Total Survey Responses Positive less Negative Responses No-Build Enhanced Corridor EmX February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 6 Figure 4: Average Rating of Corridor Alternatives from Open House and Online Respondents Highway 99: There is strong support for the build alternatives, with the Enhanced Corridor Alternative rated most favorable. The rating for No-Build was the second lowest for all the corridors. River Road: River Road is the only corridor with EmX rated as the most preferred options. In addition, the No-Build Alternatives was the lowest rated among all the corridors. 30th Avenue to LCC: This corridor had the greatest balance between the three alternatives, with Enhanced Corridor rated singly better than EmX. The No-Build Alternative is rated relatively high compared to the other corridors. Coburg Road: The Enhanced Corridor Alternative was the highest rated option for Coburg Road, although both build alternatives were generally rated lower than on other corridors. MLK, Jr. Boulevard: The Enhanced Corridor Alternative was rated more highly than the No-Build Alternative (this corridor does not have an EmX alternative). There is a possibility that the City of Eugene will proceed with the installation of Business Access Transit (BAT) lanes on MLK, Jr. Boulevard, which is a key element of the planned Enhanced Corridor Transit improvements. Additional improvements as part of the Enhanced Corridor Alternative could be minimal. Investment Packages Of the five proposed Investment Packages, two packages – an all Enhanced Corridor package and an all EmX package (except MLK, which doesn’t have an EmX option) – are intended to provide low and high investment options. These two packages “bookend” three other alternatives, designated as Packages A, B, and C, which are a combination of No-Build, Enhanced Corridor, and EmX alternatives. The proposed investment packages are shown in Table 2. 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 Highway 99 River Road 30th/LCC Coburg Road MLK, Jr. Boulevard Corridor Alternative Ratings Combined Online and Open House Participants No-Build Enhanced Corridor EmX February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 7 Table 2: Proposed Investment Packages Corridor Investment Package Highway 99 River Road 30th Avenue to LCC Coburg Road MLK, Junior Boulevard Enhanced Corridor Package Enhanced Corridor Enhanced Corridor Enhanced Corridor Enhanced Corridor Enhanced Corridor Package A Enhanced Corridor EmX No-Build No-Build No-Build Package B Enhanced Corridor EmX No-Build Enhanced Corridor Enhanced Corridor Package C Enhanced Corridor EmX Enhanced Corridor Enhanced Corridor Enhanced Corridor EmX Package EmX EmX EmX EmX Enhanced Corridor The selection of the three “mix and match” packages (Packages A, B, and C) was based on a combination of the technical analysis and community feedback. Packages A, B, and C are listed in order from the lowest investment to the highest investment. A summary evaluation of these packages is provided in the following sections. The green highlighted items in the evaluation summaries for each corridor indicate the evaluation criteria rated most important based on community feedback. ENHANCED CORRIDOR PACKAGE Enhanced Corridor Package Corridor No-Build Enhanced Corridor EmX Highway 99  River Road  30th Ave to LCC  Coburg Road  MLK, Jr. Boulevard  February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 8 The Enhanced Corridor package rates well for having low capital cost and operating cost (no annual operating cost increase) and relatively low impact on property, trees, and parking. However, relative to other packages, the Enhanced Corridor Package has a small ridership increase, low travel time savings, and a low rating for bicycle and pedestrian safety and access investments, all of which were deemed important criteria from community opinion surveys. This package is moderately consistent with local plans and policies, showing slight decreases in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, and some safety improvements. Return on Investment As noted, due to the qualitative aspect of many of the benefits, MovingAhead does not lend itself to a typical Return on Investment (ROI) assessment. The Enhanced Corridor Package, like every investment package, will create jobs associated with construction, may leverage discretionary federal funding, and improve safety and mobility. In addition, this package is characterized by the following:  The Enhanced Corridor Package would add an estimated 389,000 riders without increasing operating cost.  Total travel time savings for both existing and new riders as a result of travel time savings associated with the Enhanced Corridor Package are estimated at 575,900 hours per year. Average Bicycle/Pedestrian Access and Safety Investments (1-5 rating)3.0 Capital Cost (millions) Consistency with Local Plans and Policies 3.2 Investment in Corridors with Higher Level of Disadvantaged Population Number/Acreage of Acquisitions 115 /4.1 44 /1.3 5 /1.3 13 /0.4 47 /1 6 /0.1 Operating Cost Change from No-Build (annual, in millions) Parking Impacts: Corridor On-Street and Off- Street Parking Impacts (number of spaces) Potential Property Displacements Ridership Increase Compared to No-Build (annual) Support for Corridor Development and Redevelopment (1-5 rating)3.0 Support from the Public (1-5 rating)3.56 Transit Travel Time Improvement (percent)21% Tree Impacts: Number of Medium and Large Trees Impacted 4 0 4 0 0 0 13 58 9 9 3 3.48 3.47 3.45 3.71 19%6%28%15% ($0.6)($0.5)$0.0 $1.1 0 33,000 (30,000)63,000 186,000 MLK, Jr. Parkway Enhanced Corridor Enhanced Corridor Enhanced Corridor Enhanced Corridor 4 $38 2.5 3 3 2.5 $24 $21 $41 $21 River RoadHighway 99 Coburg Road ($0.1) 50 111,000 3 3.69 2 69 67 3 3 3 Measure Package Summary Enhanced Corridor 30th Avenue to LCC 34% 14 Total 389,000 $148 56% -$0.1 188 103 4 4 2 3 3 Enhanced Corridor Package Evaluation Summary February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 9  The Enhanced Corridor Package would improve system reliability by constructing additional bus priority/exclusivity. In total, 7.1% (3.59 miles) of package corridors lengths would feature bus priority/exclusivity.  The Enhanced Corridor Package would implement moderate safety improvements for motor vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians on five corridors.  Transit investments support transit oriented development. There are 152 acres of vacant, transit supportive lands within the corridors with investments. February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 10 PACKAGE A Package A Corridor No-Build Enhanced Corridor EmX Highway 99  River Road  30th Ave to LCC  Coburg Road  MLK, Jr. Boulevard  Package A represents a minimal investment option, with investment only on the Highway 99 (Enhanced Corridor) and River Road (EmX) corridors. Those two corridors had the strongest support for the build options in the community surveys. Corresponding to the low investment approach, this package also has the lowest impacts among Packages A, B, and C on property, trees, and parking. All investments are in corridors with relatively high levels of low-income and minority population. Due to the three No-Build corridors, which had low support from the public, this package rates relatively poorly for public support. Average Bicycle/Pedestrian Access and Safety Investments (1-5 rating)2.4 Capital Cost (millions) Consistency with Local Plans and Policies 2.4 Investment in Corridors with Higher Level of Disadvantaged Population Number/Acreage of Acquisitions 84 /3.5 44 /1.3 40 /2.2 0 /0 0 /0 0 /0 Operating Cost Change from No-Build (annual, in millions) Parking Impacts: Corridor On-Street and Off- Street Parking Impacts (number of spaces) Potential Property Displacements Ridership Increase Compared to No-Build (annual) Support for Corridor Development and Redevelopment (1-5 rating)2.2 Support from the Public (1-5 rating)3.06 Transit Travel Time Improvement (percent)13% Tree Impacts: Number of Medium and Large Trees Impacted Package A Evaluation Summary 6 $119 98% $1.9 81 385,000 146 0 0 50 31 0 0 0 2.27 2.96 0%0% 0 0 1 1 3.69 3.73 2.65 34%31%0% 111,000 246,000 0 3 5 1 14 132 0 ($0.1)$2.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $38 $78 $0 $0 $0 4 5 1 1 1 0 6 0 0 0 4 5 1 1 1 Highway 99 River Road 30th Avenue to LCC Coburg Road MLK, Jr. Parkway Enhanced Corridor EmX No-Build No-Build No-Build Package Summary TotalMeasure February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 11 This package is rated low for consistently with local plans and policies, primarily because investments are only made on two corridors. Return on Investment As noted, due to the qualitative aspect of many of the benefits, MovingAhead does not lend itself to a typical Return on Investment (ROI) assessment. Package A, like every investment package, will create jobs associated with construction, may leverage discretionary federal funding, and improve safety and mobility. In addition, this package is characterized by the following:  An estimated $1.9 million annual increase in operating cost would result in an estimated 385,000, for a cost of $4.94 per added trip.  Total travel time savings for both existing and new riders as a result of travel time savings associated with Package A are estimated at 557,400 hours per year.  Package A would improve system reliability by constructing additional bus priority/exclusivity. In total, 12.6% (6.39 miles) of package corridor lengths would feature bus priority/exclusivity.  Package A would implement moderate safety improvements for motor vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians on one corridor and greater safety improvements on one corridor, for a total of two corridors.  Transit investments support transit oriented development. There are 116 acres of vacant, transit supportive lands within the corridors with investments. February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 12 PACKAGE B Package B Corridor No-Build Enhanced Corridor EmX Highway 99  River Road  30th Ave to LCC  Coburg Road  MLK, Jr. Boulevard  Package B provides for a moderate level of investment, with build options on four of the five corridors. The only EmX Alternative is on the River Road Corridor. All corridors use the preferred option based on community feedback, except the 30th Avenue to LCC corridor. This package provides moderate ratings on most criteria. The package rates well on investments focused in corridors with higher levels of low- income and minority populations, and has an average level of public support. This package is moderately Average Bicycle/Pedestrian Access and Safety Investments (1-5 rating)3.1 Capital Cost (millions) Consistency with Local Plans and Policies 3.2 Investment in Corridors with Higher Level of Disadvantaged Population Number/Acreage of Acquisitions 137 /4.6 44 /1.3 40 /2.2 0 /0 47 /1 6 /0.1 Operating Cost Change from No-Build (annual, in millions) Parking Impacts: Corridor On-Street and Off- Street Parking Impacts (number of spaces) Potential Property Displacements Ridership Increase Compared to No-Build (annual) Support for Corridor Development and Redevelopment (1-5 rating)3.0 Support from the Public (1-5 rating)3.45 Transit Travel Time Improvement (percent)22% Tree Impacts: Number of Medium and Large Trees Impacted Enhanced Corridor 0 2.5 $21 $1.1 0 164 3.69 3.73 2.65 3.45 34%31%0%28% 14 132 0 9 576,000 186,000 76% 4 5 1 3 4 5 1 3 $181 $38 $78 $0 $41 Total Enhanced Corridor EmX No-Build Enhanced Corridor 6 0 6 0 0 Package Summary Package B Evaluation Summary Highway 99 River Road 30th Avenue to LCC Coburg Road MLK, Jr. Parkway 3 Measure $3.0 ($0.1)$2.0 $0.0 $0.0 148 50 31 0 67 111,000 246,000 0 63,000 3 5 1 3 3 3.71 15% 9 February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 13 consistent with local plans and policies, showing slight decreases in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, and some safety improvements. Return on Investment As noted, due to the qualitative aspect of many of the benefits, MovingAhead does not lend itself to a typical Return on Investment (ROI) assessment. Package B, like every investment package, will create jobs associated with construction, may leverage discretionary federal funding, and improve safety and mobility. In addition, this package is characterized by the following:  An estimated $3.0 million annual increase in operating cost would result in an estimated 576,000, for a cost of $5.21 per added trip.  Total travel time savings for both existing and new riders as a result of travel time savings associated with Package B are estimated at 640,900 hours per year.  Package B would improve system reliability by constructing additional bus priority/exclusivity. In total, 18.3% (9.29 miles) of package corridor lengths would feature bus priority/exclusivity.  Package B would implement moderate safety improvements for motor vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians on three corridors and greater safety improvements on one corridor, for a total of four corridors.  Transit investments support transit oriented development. There are 193 acres of vacant, transit supportive lands within the corridors with investments. February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 14 PACKAGE C Package C Corridor No-Build Enhanced Corridor EmX Highway 99  River Road  30th Ave to LCC  Coburg Road  MLK, Jr. Boulevard  Package C represents a relatively high level of investment, with build alternatives on all five corridors. In this package, the preferred mode alternative, as determined through community feedback, has been selected for each of the five corridors. This package is rated higher than the other packages except the EmX Package for consistency with local plans and policies, showing slight decreases in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, and significant safety improvements. Average Bicycle/Pedestrian Access and Safety Investments (1-5 rating)3.5 Capital Cost (millions) Consistency with Local Plans and Policies 3.4 Investment in Corridors with Higher Level of Disadvantaged Population Number/Acreage of Acquisitions 150 /5.0 44 /1.3 40 /2.2 13 /0.4 47 /1 6 /0.1 Operating Cost Change from No-Build (annual, in millions) Parking Impacts: Corridor On-Street and Off- Street Parking Impacts (number of spaces) Potential Property Displacements Ridership Increase Compared to No-Build (annual) Support for Corridor Development and Redevelopment (1-5 rating)3.4 Support from the Public (1-5 rating)3.61 Transit Travel Time Improvement (percent)23% Tree Impacts: Number of Medium and Large Trees Impacted 3 3.69 3.73 3.47 3.45 3.71 34%31%6%28%15% 14 132 58 9 9 $41 $21 50 31 69 67 0 ($0.1)$2.0 ($0.5)$0.0 $1.1 0 6 0 0 0 222 Measure Package Summary Total 6 $202 68% $2.5 217 4 5 3 3 2.5 $38 $78 $21 Highway 99 River Road 30th Avenue to LCC Coburg Road MLK, Jr. Parkway Enhanced Corridor EmX Enhanced Corridor Enhanced Corridor Enhanced Corridor 4 5 2 3 3 521,000 111,000 246,000 (30,000)63,000 186,000 3 5 3 3 Package C Evaluation Summary February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 15 Return on Investment As noted, due to the qualitative aspect of many of the benefits, MovingAhead does not lend itself to a typical Return on Investment (ROI) assessment. Package C, like every investment package, will create jobs associated with construction, may leverage discretionary federal funding, and improve safety and mobility. In addition, this package is characterized by the following:  An estimated $2.5 million annual increase in operating cost would result in an estimated 521,000, for a cost of $4.80 per added trip.  Total travel time savings for both existing and new riders as a result of travel time savings associated with Package C are estimated at 667,700 hours per year.  Package C would improve system reliability by constructing additional bus priority/exclusivity. In total, 18.3% (9.29 miles) of package corridor lengths would feature bus priority/exclusivity.  Package C would implement moderate safety improvements for motor vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians on four corridors and greater safety improvements on one corridor, for a total of five corridors.  Transit investments support transit oriented development. There are 197 acres of vacant, transit supportive lands within the corridors with investments. February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 16 EMX PACKAGE EmX Package Corridor No-Build Enhanced Corridor EmX Highway 99  River Road  30th Ave to LCC  Coburg Road  MLK, Jr. Boulevard  EmX Package Summary The EmX includes the highest investment options for each corridor. The package rates well for the criteria that address package benefits, such as travel time savings, ridership, and pedestrian and bicycle safety and access investments. However, it has high capital and operating cost and a high level of impacts to property, trees, and parking. This package had a relatively high level of support based on Average Bicycle/Pedestrian Access and Safety Investments (1-5 rating)4.4 Capital Cost (millions) Consistency with Local Plans and Policies 4.4 Investment in Corridors with Higher Level of Disadvantaged Population Number/Acreage of Acquisitions 177 /8.4 38 /1.6 40 /2.2 20 /0.5 73 /4 6 /0.1 Operating Cost Change from No-Build (annual, in millions) Parking Impacts: Corridor On-Street and Off- Street Parking Impacts (number of spaces) Potential Property Displacements Ridership Increase Compared to No-Build (annual) Support for Corridor Development and Redevelopment (1-5 rating)4.6 Support from the Public (1-5 rating)3.55 Transit Travel Time Improvement (percent)25% Tree Impacts: Number of Medium and Large Trees Impacted 375 53 31 156 135 0 50% $8.2 $2.8 $2.0 $0.5 $1.8 $1.1 432 40 132 102 149 9 3.62 3.73 3.45 3.26 3.71 41%31%12%28%15% 1,327,000 267,000 246,000 198,000 258,000 186,000 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 4.5 5 2.5 $335 $67 $78 $53 $113 $21 EmX Corridor Package Evaluation Summary EmX EmX EmX EmX Enhanced Corridor 8 0 6 0 2 0 Measure Package Summary Highway 99 River Road 30th Avenue to LCC Coburg Road MLK, Jr. Parkway Total 5 5 5 4 3 February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 17 community opinion surveys of the corridor alternatives include in the package. This package is rated highest for consistency with local plans and policies, due to the high level of investment in enhancements that contribute to improved safety and higher ridership. Return on Investment As noted, due to the qualitative aspect of many of the benefits, MovingAhead does not lend itself to a typical Return on Investment (ROI) assessment. The EmX Package, like every investment package, will create jobs associated with construction, may leverage discretionary federal funding, and improve safety and mobility. In addition, this package is characterized by the following:  An estimated $8.2 million annual increase in operating cost would result in an estimated 1,327000 for a cost of $6.18 per added trip.  Total travel time savings for both existing and new riders as a result of travel time savings associated with the EmX Package are estimated at 776,400 hours per year.  The EmX Package would improve system reliability by constructing additional bus priority/exclusivity. In total, 28.4% (14.27 miles) of package corridor lengths would feature bus priority/exclusivity.  The EmX Package would implement moderate safety improvements for motor vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians on one corridor and greater safety improvements on four corridors, for a total of five corridors.  Transit investments support transit oriented development. There are 287 acres of vacant, transit supportive lands within the corridors with investments. February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 18 Investment Package Summaries The following two tables summarize the evaluation of the five investment package. The first table shows the scores for the criteria for each investment package. The second table converts these scores into ratings. Evaluation Measure Bike/Ped Access and Safety Investments (1-5 rating) Capital Cost (millions) Consistency with Local Plans and Policies Investment in Corridors with Higher Level of Low Income and Minority Population (Percent) Number/Acreage of Acquisitions 115 ∕4.1 84 ∕3.5 137 /4.6 150 ∕5.0 177 ∕8.4 Operating Cost: Systemwide Change from No- Build (millions) Parking Impacts: Corridor On-Street and Off- Street Parking Impacts (number of spaces) Potential Property Displacements Ridership: Annual Systemwide Increase Compared to No-Build Support Corridor Development and Redevelopment (1-5 rating) Support from the Public (1-5 rating) Transit Travel Time Improvement Trees: Number of Medium and Large Trees Impacted 3.2 3.4 4.4 3.6 3.63.63.43.1 164 222146 432103 1,327,000 4.4 50% 4.6 666 68%76%98% 2.2 3.0 3.4 521,000576,000385,000 3.53.12.4 $2.5 $119 $1.9 $3.0 2.4 Enhanced Corridor Package $148 -$0.1 21% 389,000 3.0 56% 3.0 4 188 3.2 Scores for Each Investment Package 148 217 375 8 $202$181 22%13% EmX PackagePackage CPackage BPackage A $335 $8.2 25% 81 23% February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 19 Evaluation Measure Bike/Ped Access and Safety Investments Capital Cost Consistency with Local Plans and Policies Investment in Corridors with Higher Level of Low Income and Minority Population Number/Acreage of Acquisitions Operating Cost Parking Impacts Potential Property Displacements Ridership Support Corridor Development and Redevelopment Support from the Public Transit Travel Time Improvement Trees Impacted 3 1 3 3 5 2 1 2 3 5 Enhanced Corridor Package A Package B Package C 4 3 3 4 4 3 2 3 3 5 5 4 4 3 1 3 1 3 3 4 1 1 2 3 5 5 4 3 4 1 4 5 3 2 1 2 5 4 3 1 4 5 3 3 1 EmX Package 5 3 3 3 1 3 5 4 2 1 Ratings for Each Investment Package February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 Corridor Investment Package Options MovingAhead – a partnership between the City of Eugene, Lane Transit District, and other regional partners – is exploring five transportation investment packages that identify possible changes for some of our most important streets over the next 10 years. Early community input identified five key corridors for future investment: River Road; Highway 99; Coburg Road; MLK, Jr. Blvd; and 30th Avenue to LCC. Based on community preferences and technical analysis for each of these corridors, the City and LTD have developed a range of proposed investment options bundled into packages for further review. Each package includes a combination of the following investment alternatives in each of the five corridors: January 16, 2019 No-Build Alternative (No new investments at this time) • Only currently planned investments would be implemented. • Acts as a comparison for costs and benefits of other options. • Does not forward existing plans and policy goals, such as Envision Eugene. EmX Alternative (Higher investment option) • Short for Emerald Express, EmX is LTD’s branded bus rapid transit (BRT) service. • Typically includes transit priority, enhanced stations with raised platforms, specialized buses, and off-board fare collection. • Greater improvements for people walking and biking. Enhanced Corridor Alternative (Lower investment option) • Can range from limited improvements to a relatively high level of investments that are comparable to EmX in some features, like transit signal priority and enhanced bus stops. • Includes safety and access improvements for people walking and biking. • Enhanced Corridor transit service may or may not include branded buses. What we’ve heard so far Over the summer and fall of 2018, the City and LTD gathered valuable input from the community about the MovingAhead project. A number of key themes emerged from this feedback: • There is strong support for transit investments with a preference for the EmX and Enhanced Corridor options compared to No-Build options. • Improvements and safety for people who walk and bike, ridership, travel time, and operating costs are important criteria for evaluating the packages. • EmX along River Road is the corridor option with the strongest support. • The difference in support is smaller among options for the 30th Avenue to LCC and MLK, Jr. Blvd corridors. February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 The five proposed options represent a range of investment levels based on community feedback and findings from the Alternatives Analysis. The lowest level investment package (considering both capital and operating costs) is an all Enhanced Corridor package followed by three increasing investment levels in packages A, B, and C. The highest level investment package is an all EmX package (except MLK, Jr., where EmX was not considered). This table illustrates how each of the packages compare on a variety of evaluation criteria. W R E EX River Rd Hwy 99 Coburg Rd MLK, Jr. Blvd 30th Ave/LCC W R E EX River Rd Hwy 99 Coburg Rd MLK, Jr. Blvd 30th Ave/LCC W R E EX River Rd Hwy 99 Coburg Rd MLK, Jr. Blvd 30th Ave/LCC W R E EX River Rd Hwy 99 Coburg Rd MLK, Jr. Blvd 30th Ave/LCC W R E EX River Rd Hwy 99 Coburg Rd MLK, Jr. Blvd 30th Ave/LCC Enhanced Corridor Package Package A Package B Package C EmX Package Cost  Systemwide Annual Operating Cost (Change from No-Build) -$0.1M $1.9M $3.0M $2.5M $8.2M Capital Cost $148M $119M $181M $202M $335M Transit Performance  Transit Travel Time Improvement 21%13%22%23%25%  Systemwide Annual Ridership Increase (Compared to No-Build)389,000 385,000 576,000 521,0002 1,327,000 Bicycling & Walking  New Bike/Ped Access and Safety Investments (1-5 rating) Development Impacts Support Development and Redevelopment (1-5 rating) Number of Medium and Large Trees Impacted 103 146 164 222 432 Number/Acreage of Acquisitions 115 / 4.1 84 / 3.5 137 / 4.6 150 / 5 177 / 8.4 Potential Business Relocations1 4 6 6 6 8 Parking Impacts: On-Street/Off-Street (Number of spaces)188 81 148 217 375 Community Vision  Percent of Investment in Corridors with Higher Level of Disadvantaged Population 56%98%76%68%50% Support from the Public (1-5 rating) Consistency with Local Plans and Policies (1-5 rating)  Starred criteria have been identified as a top priority based on public feedback. 1. Mitigation measures would be used to avoid or reduce impacts. 2. LCC Enhanced Corridor ridership estimates do not account for peak student ridership that is included in No-Build. No-Build Enhanced Corridor EmXPossible Investment Packages for Community Consideration  Supports Project Criteria Does not Support Project Criteria  +$0 / ADDED TRIP +$4.94 / ADDED TRIP +$5.21 / ADDED TRIP +$4.80 / ADDED TRIP +$6.18 / ADDED TRIP February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 Comparing Investment Packages Enhanced Corridor Package - Low capital cost, no annual operating cost increase, and relatively low impact on property, trees, and parking. Relatively low rating for safety and access investments for people who walk and bike, only a small ridership increase, and low travel time savings. Package A - Minimal investment focused on Highway 99 (Enhanced Corridor) and River Road (EmX) . Focuses service in areas with higher levels of low-income and minority populations and has the lowest impact on property, trees, and parking. Rated less consistent with local plans and has lower community support since only two corridors receive investments. Package B - Moderate investment with build options on four of the five corridors. The only EmX Alternative is on River Road. All corridors include community preferred alternatives, except the 30th Avenue to LCC corridor which is designated as No-Build. Provides moderate ratings on most criteria and rates well for investments focused in corridors with higher levels of low-income and minority populations. Package C - Relatively high investment with build alternatives on all five corridors. All corridors include community preferred alternatives. Rated the second highest for consistency with local plans and policies. EmX Package - Highest level of investment options for each corridor. Rates highest for safety and access improvements for people who walk and ride bikes, travel time savings, and ridership. High capital and operating costs and a high level of impacts to property, trees, and parking. Rated highest for consistency with local plans and policies due to investment in enhancements that contribute to improved safety and ridership. How Packages Were Evaluated The investment packages were evaluated using a broad range of criteria (see matrix graphic on previous page). These include some of the same criteria as the corridor- level evaluation, along with new criteria to help assess system-wide benefits. Return On Investment (ROI) was explored as a way to determine benefits relative to cost, however many of the benefits – such as safety improvements for people who walk and ride bikes, support for economic development, and tree impacts – are difficult to quantify in dollars. Environmental impacts to air quality, water quality, and natural resources were also evaluated as part of the Alternatives Analysis (AA). Since differences in environmental impacts were minimal among the corridor alternatives, these impacts were not considered to be helpful as evaluation criteria. (For more detail, see Chapters 3-8 of the AA.) Benefits to the Community MovingAhead is an important step toward meeting many of our community’s long-term goals. By increasing safety for everyone – whether walking, biking, taking the bus, or driving – we can help implement our Vision Zero action plan, which strives to prevent loss of life or serious injury on Eugene’s streets. Additionally, by providing more and better transportation options across our community, MovingAhead will help us meet our climate recovery and green house gas reduction goals by lowering our reliance on automobiles. All of the investment packages will bring some level of ROI to the community, such as creating more than 100 direct and induced jobs for every $10 million of construction and may draw federal funding to the community. Implementation and Next Steps Public input on the package options will be an important factor in the decision by the Eugene City Council and LTD Board of Directors on a preferred package of investments. That decision is expected to be made in fall 2019. Once approved, the preferred investment package will inform which projects are prioritized for the next 10 years. A plan for funding and timing of corridor investments will be developed later, with the goal of using local dollars to leverage state and federal funding. Some components of each corridor alternative, like pedestrian crossings or bike lanes, could move forward incrementally as funding becomes available. LTD is also working on near-term transit service improvements as part of a planning effort called Transit Tomorrow. This deep look at LTD’s current service will help make choices about the system as a whole and balance the demands of our diverse community with the conscientious use of public funding. The outcomes of Transit Tomorrow will help set the stage to roll out MovingAhead investments as funding becomes available. The City and LTD are committed to working closely with affected stakeholders – particularly with business and property owners along each corridor – to understand and provide solutions that will address impacts associated with design and construction. www.MovingAhead.orgFebruary 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 FALL 2018 WINTER 2018 DEC - FEB SPRING/SUMMER 2019 MAR - AUG FALL/WINTER 2019/2020 SEP - JAN Timeline 2018 – 2020 Open House Publish Corridor Findings Updated: JAN 2019 = Joint Work Session Final Decisions (two meetings) Metropolitan Policy Committee Central Lane Metropolitan Planning Organization LTD Board Eugene City Council LTD Strategic Planning Committee Oversight Committee Sounding Board Recommend and Adopt Investment Package of Multimodal Improvements Community Input Opportunities Alternatives Analysis Open House Start of 30-Day Comment Period Publish Investment Packages Public Hearing February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 1 February 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2 EUGENE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Update: Downtown Riverfront Redevelopment Meeting Date: February 19, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 2 Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Michael Kinnison www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-5500 ISSUE STATEMENT At this work session, staff will provide an update on the Downtown Riverfront project, including next steps for council and public input. BACKGROUND On January 24, 2019, the Urban Renewal Agency signed a Disposition and Development Agreement with Williams/Dame & Associates. The DDA major terms are the ones approved by the Agency Board in July 2018 and that were shared with the community last summer. Along with the DDA, the City and WDA signed a Memorandum of Understanding to describe the actions that the City expects to take related to the riverfront property. (Attachment A has the summary of the DDA key points and the concept plan.) Over the next year, the City will be working with WDA to move the concept plan forward. Several of the steps including code amendments, budget authorization, Multi-Unit Property Tax Exemption consideration, and Local Improvement District, will require action by council and provide numerous opportunities for public input. Staff will keep council informed about key dates as they arise. The Downtown Riverfront website will be updated with current information, (https://www.eugene-or.gov/3506/Downtown-Riverfront-Development) and regular updates will be sent to an interested parties list. Relevant next steps are listed below. Code Amendment/Land Use The concept plan presented by WDA is consistent with the intent and goals of the EWEB Master Plan, but some of the details are different. For example, the proposed concept plan extends 5th Street all the way to the river, establishing both a view corridor and pedestrian/bicycle path to the river. Also, the main street through the site has been relocated to be adjacent to the railroad tracks, land which could not be redeveloped anyway because of the major EWEB utilities located beneath the surface. To make the concept plan a reality, it will be necessary to amend the land use code. In addition, changes are needed so that the Park development can occur. Council initiated the land use code amendment process on July 9, 2018. Staff is working to have the draft land use package ready in early March so that the Planning Commission can hold a public hearing in early- to mid-April. The Planning Commission is expected to make a recommendation to council by the end of May. Council would then hold a public hearing in June with final action before its summer February 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2 recess. The kickoff neighborhood event, with the Downtown Neighborhood Association, is scheduled for the evening of February 27 (5:30-7:00pm, Bascom Room, Downtown Library). Site Schedule Staff is planning for construction activity for infrastructure and the park over the next two years. Three basic phases will proceed in the following order: 1) building demolition, 2) site preparation, and 3) park and infrastructure. • Building Demolition. Building demolition will take place this spring and will include demolition and abatement of the major structures (Midgley, Bow Truss, tire shop, and Equipment Repair buildings). For the Bow Truss building, staff is working with the State Historic Preservation Office to ensure that proper attention is given to anything of historic value. • Site Preparation. Work is planned to start in the summer and finish in the fall of 2019. This includes riverbank restoration/riparian enhancement, tree removal and contouring (grading) the site to accommodate the park, streets, utilities and buildings. • Park and Infrastructure. See next two sections below. Riverfront Park Last year, the City officially took ownership of the Riverfront Park site from Eugene Water & Electric Board. Concurrently, the Riverfront Park has moved into the design development phase of planning work and has been split into two construction phases: the first phase concentrates on riparian enhancements along the river bank; the second phase includes most of the upland elements. Riparian enhancement is scheduled to begin this summer and finish in the fall. Construction of the park paths, landscape, viewing points and utilities in the three-acre linear park is planned to start in the spring of 2020 and be open by spring of 2021. Construction of the adjacent one-acre park plaza will follow construction of the linear park. Additional public outreach for the design development phase will happen this spring/summer. The concept design for the park is in Attachment B. More information can be found at the Downtown Riverfront Park website (https://www.eugene-or.gov/3917/Downtown-Riverfront-Park). Infrastructure & Local Improvement District Based on City Council’s July 9 and October 22, 2018, direction approving steps #1 and #2 of the LID process, engineering and design work is underway for the next 12 months. Construction bids are estimated to be received in early 2020 followed by a public hearing before a hearings official. Council action to form the LID and authorize the City Manager to award a construction contract is estimated for late spring 2020. Subsequent to the completion of construction and a public hearing on proposed assessments, council will take action on an ordinance levying the assessments, expected for early 2021. The estimated FY19 design cost of infrastructure is $1M, which is being funded with Riverfront Urban Renewal funds, through existing capital budget authority. These expenditures will ultimately become part of the total LID cost. As design and costing information is completed, staff February 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2 anticipate including additional funds in the FY20 Proposed Budget for design and preliminary infrastructure work. Steam Plant In April 2018, the Agency Board approved a process and criteria to select a developer for redevelopment of the Steam Plant. In August, the City invited a local team led by Mark Miksis, of deChase Miksis, and Mark Frohnmayer, of Arcimoto, to prepare a full proposal for the redevelopment of the Steam Plant. The team is in the process of assessing the building’s potential, bringing in architects, engineers and other experts and beginning to explore a financing strategy. In partnership with the City, the team’s public engagement effort began at the end of January. This includes presence at several community events, an online survey, and an Open House scheduled for February 7 (4-7pm at the EWEB Headquarters building, 500 E. 4th Avenue, Community Room/Training Room). More information and a link to the survey can be found at the Steam Plant website (https://www.eugene-or.gov/3875/Downtown-Riverfront-Steam-Plant). The survey is open through February 19. Following public engagement, the Riverfront Urban Renewal District advisory committee, River Guides, will evaluate the proposal using the Agency Board-approved criteria and make a recommendation to the Agency Director and Board. The Agency Board is scheduled to review the proposal on April 8 and will be asked to take action on whether or not to authorize the Agency Director to move forward and negotiate deal points with the team. Should the Agency Board authorize negotiation, there would be a subsequent work session in early summer on the deal points. Quiet Zone The 10 crossings in the railroad Quiet Zone project are planned for construction in 2020, three of which are near to the Downtown Riverfront redevelopment (8th Ave./Hilyard, High/5th Ave. and Pearl/5th Ave.). More information can be found at the Quiet Zone website (https://www.eugene-or.gov/2920/RRQZ---Railroad-Quiet-Zone). MUPTE WDA estimates submitting a MUPTE application around August for the first parcel (Lot 3A on the eastern side of High street between 5th and 4th avenues) to be developed. If so, the 30-day written comment period would be in September, the MUPTE Review Panel would meet in early fall, and City Council would consider the application in November/December. WDA also plans to submit applications for the other two multi-unit market rate housing projects in the future. EWEB Headquarters Building An appraisal for the EWEB Headquarters building is scheduled to be completed in February. PREVIOUS COUNCIL/AGENCY BOARD DIRECTION July 9, 2018, Work Session  Authorized the Agency Director to approve a disposition and development agreement consistent with the terms included in Attachment B and to direct the Agency February 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2 Director to negotiate for additional greenspace and, if more green space is possible, return to Agency Board with revised terms.  Initiated the process for the Planning Commission and City Council to consider land use code and plan amendments to enable the development of the downtown riverfront consistent with the concept plan presented by WDA.  Initiated consideration of a proposed local improvement district for the downtown riverfront development site consistent with the concept plan presented by WDA and directed the City Manager to return to City Council with the report described in section 7.160(6) of the Eugene Code, so that the council can determine whether to proceed with the local improvement district.  Pursuant to section 2.1425(1) of the Eugene Code, authorized the City Manager to negotiate and execute a contract with WDA for the management of the downtown riverfront redevelopment site infrastructure project, including related items such as the submission of the subdivision application. July 23, 2018, Work Session  Authorized the Agency Director to sell lot 10A to WDA to build (solely or in partnership with another entity) no fewer than 75 units of affordable housing. The units shall be affordable to households at or below 60 percent of the area median income. October 22, 2018, Work Session  Directed the Agency Director to explore options on expanding the number of affordable housing units and possible public parking and bring back design options on anticipated costs and proposed public investment. AGENCY BOARD OPTIONS No action required at this time AGENCY DIRECTOR’S RECOMMENDATION None. SUGGESTED MOTION None. ATTACHMENTS A. DDA/MOU Summary and Concept Plan B. Concept Design for the Downtown Riverfront Park February 19, 2019, Work Session – Item 2 FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Michael Kinnison Telephone: 541-682-5500 Staff E-Mail: mkinnison@eugene-or.gov Staff Contact: Matt Rodriguez Telephone: 541-682-5243 Staff E-Mail: mrodrigues@eugene-or.gov Staff Contact: Emily Proudfoot Telephone: 541-682-4915 Staff E-Mail: eproudfoot@eugene-or.gov ATTACHMENT A DDA/MOU Summary & Concept Plan •The DDA and MOU include the terms approved by the Agency Board in July. •WDA will purchase approximately 8 acres for $2.7 million. •WDA will ground lease, for fair market value, parcel 6 and 8. (See map below.) for commercial and restaurant space. •The redevelopment would add upwards of 300 units of housing. •WDA will pay roughly 50% of City-owned infrastructure costs. •WDA will purchase the affordable housing site for fair market value and build no fewer than 75 affordable housing units. The units must be rented to households at or below 60% of the area median income. WDA plans to partner with an affordable housing provider. •WDA and the City will jointly develop design requirements that will apply to all vertical development on the site in order to ensure high quality design consistent with the concept plan. •WDA will pay for, construct and operate open space under the viaduct. •City will construct and operate 1-acre park plaza in conjunction with 3-acre park. •City and WDA will work on a collaborative programing agreement for the 1-acre plaza. •The Agency has right to repurchase WDA parcels if WDA does not start construction within a specified period. February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 2 Hi g h S t Hil y a r d S t E 4th Ave E 3rd Ave Fer r y S t B r i d g e Fe r r y S t E 6th Ave E 7th Ave E 5th Ave Mi l l S t Mi l l S t E 8th Ave E 8t h A v e Downtown Riverfront Redevelopment Concept Plan 0 100 Ft [ Parcel configuration derived from SERA architects DWG - Plan is preliminary Data supplemented by city staff as appropriate. Caution: This map is based on imprecise source data, subject to change, and for general reference only. City of Eugene Planning and Development February 1, 2019 AFFORDABLE HOUSING CITY PARK & PUBLIC PLAZA Townhomes HOUSING Multi-family HOUSING Multi-family HOUSING STEAM PLANT HOTEL or Multi-family HOUSING COMMERCIAL RESTAURANT Townhomes HOUSING Townhomes HOUSING Townhomes HOUSING Townhomes HOUSING To w n h o m e s HO U S I N G To w n h o m e s H O U S I N G Multi-family HOUSING Developer to purchase Quiet Zone Crossings Agency to keep Aordable housing site - Developer to purchase Riverfront Site - Agency Purchased Agency to keep - Developer to ground lease 3A 3B 3C 7 9B 9A 10A 10B 6 1 2 4 8 5 P A R K VIADUCT OPEN SPACE W i l l a m e t t e R i v e r A l t o n B a k e r P a r k R i v e r f r o n t P a r k E W E B H e a d q u a r t e r s B u i l d i n g 5 t h S t P u b l i c M a r k e t N o r t h w e s t C o m m u n i t y C r e d i t U n i o n S k i n n e r B u t t e P a r k Southern Access SUBSTATION 1/ 2 s t r e e t February 19, 2019, Work Session - Item 2 LEGEND 01/18/2019 DOWNTOWN RIVERFRONT PARK CONCRETE PLAZA WOOD DECK MEADOW / POLLINATOR PRAIRIE ECO-LAWN UPLAND STORMWATER SEATWALL EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN RIPARIAN 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 OVERLOOK MULTI-MODAL PATH FUTURE PARK PLAZA WATERFRONT SEATING WOOD DECKING PUBLIC ART PAVILION KAYAK ACCESS IMPROVED DEFAZIO CONNECTION EWEB HEAD QUARTERS ALTON BAKER PARK STEAM PLANT 5 T H S T R E E T A T T A C H M E N T B F e b r u a r y 1 9 , 2 0 1 9 , W o r k S e s s i o n - I t e m 2