Claire Syrett For City Council V Meta Maxwell Et Al

8/18/2022 4:18 PM
22CV27863
4 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON
5 FOR THE COUNTY OF LANE
6 CLAIRE SYRETT FOR EUGENE CITY Case No.

7 COUNCIL, a candidate committee; and
CLAIRE SYRETT, an individual, COMPLAINT
8
Plaintiffs, (PUBLICATION OF FALSE
9 STATEMENTS IN VIOLATION
v. OF ORS 260.532; CLAIM FOR
10 DECLARATORY JUDGMENT;
META MAXWELL, an individual; CLAIM FOR ATTORNEY FEES)
11
MARK OSTERLOH, an individual;
12 RECALL CLAIRE SYRETT, a petition CLAIMS NOT SUBJECT TO
committee; JP HAMMER, an individual MANDATORY ARBITRATION
13 GERALD MORTON, an individual; and
EUGENE BUSINESS ALLIANCE, a Prayer: $2,500
14
mutual benefit nonprofit corporation,
Fee Authority: ORS 21.135(1), (2)(F)
15
Defendants, Fee Amount: $281
16
and
17
LANE COUNTY ELECTIONS
18 DIVISION; and EUGENE CITY
19 RECORDER,
20 Nominal Defendants.
21
22 Plaintiffs Claire Syrett for Eugene City Council and Claire Syrett allege and
23 pray for relief as follows:
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
PAGE 1 – COMPLAINT
TONKON TORP LLP
888 SW FIFTH AVE., SUITE 1600
PORTLAND, OR 97204
503.221.1440
1 PARTIES
2 1.
3 Plaintiff Claire Syrett for Eugene City Council (the “Candidate Committee”)
4 is a candidate committee registered with the Oregon Elections Division. The
5 Candidate Committee’s current purpose is supporting Claire Syrett as a candidate
6 for City Councilor, City of Eugene, Ward 7.
7 2.
8 Plaintiff Claire Syrett (“Councilor Syrett”) is an individual residing in Lane

9 County, Oregon. She is the current City of Eugene Councilor for Ward 7 and serves
10 as the President of the City Council.
11 3.
12 Defendant Meta Maxwell (“Defendant Maxwell”) is an individual residing in
13 Lane County, Oregon.
14 4.
15 Defendant John P. Hammer (“Defendant Hammer”) is an individual residing
16 in Lane County, Oregon and the member of JP Hammer, LLC, an Oregon limited
17 liability company with a principal place of business in Lane County, Oregon.
18 5.
19 Defendant Mark Osterloh (“Defendant Osterloh”) is an individual residing in
21 6.
22 Defendant Gerald Morton (“Defendant Morton”) is an individual residing in
24 7.
25 Defendant Recall Claire Syrett (the “Recall Committee”) is an Oregon
26 Petition Committee registered with the Oregon Elections Division. The Recall
TONKON TORP LLP
PORTLAND, OR 97204
503.221.1440
1 Committee’s purpose is to support the recall of Councilor Syrett from her position as
2 City Councilor, City of Eugene, Ward 7. Mark Osterloh is the Recall Committee’s
3 Treasurer, Gerald Morton is its Chief Petitioner, and Meta Maxwell is its
4 Alternative Transaction Filer.
5 8.
6 Defendant Eugene Business Alliance (“Defendant EBA”) is an Oregon mutual
7 benefit nonprofit corporation and an unregistered Oregon campaign committee.
8 Defendant EBA’s Registered Agent address and mailing address is in Lane County,
9 Oregon.
10 9.
11 Nominal Defendant Lane County Elections Division is a Division of Lane
12 County.
13 10.
14 Nominal Defendant Eugene City Recorder is an officer of the City of Eugene
15 responsible for the City’s role in elections, including the special election scheduled
16 for September 6, 2022.
17 COUNCILOR SYRETT’S CITY COUNCIL ELECTIONS AND SERVICE
18 11.
19 Councilor Syrett was first elected as City of Eugene Councilor, Ward 7 in
20 2012. She received 3,754 votes in the uncontested race, as reflected in a Summary
21 Report on the General Election, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1 and the
22 contents of which are incorporated herein by reference.
23 12.
24 Councilor Syrett was reelected as City of Eugene Councilor, Ward 7 in 2016.
25 She received 4,605 votes in the uncontested race as reflected in the Statement of
26
TONKON TORP LLP
PORTLAND, OR 97204
503.221.1440
1 Votes, Lane County General Election, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 2 and
2 the contents of which are incorporated herein by reference.
3 13.
4 Councilor Syrett was reelected as City of Eugene Councilor, Ward 7 in 2020.
5 She defeated two challengers, earning 2,704 votes compared to her challengers’
6 respective 1,163 and 639, as reflected in the Statement of Votes, Lane County
7 Primary Election, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 3 and the contents of which
8 are incorporated herein by reference.

9 14.
10 During Councilor Syrett’s three terms serving on the Eugene City Council,
11 the Council has voted on and adopted approximately 189 resolutions, it has voted on
12 and passed approximately 316 ordinances, and it has adopted annual budgets each
13 year authorizing the City’s raising and spending of hundreds of millions of dollars.
14 With few exceptions, due to excused absences, Councilor Syrett has voted on of the
15 motions to adopt and approve those resolutions, ordinances, and budgets.
16 15.
17 Over her 10 years of public service as a Eugene City Councilor, Claire Syrett
18 has built a distinguished record of accomplishment. As a diligent and effective
19 advocate, she has helped guide the City of Eugene in making major advances and
20 achieving critically important policy goals.
21 a. Housing for unsheltered
22 o Secured initial $1 million for the recently opened Navigation Center,
23 which will provide unsheltered people with connections to housing.
24 o Led efforts to establish pioneering Rest Stop program to provide
25 temporary shelter to those living on the streets.
26 o Supported expansion of shelter options through Safe Sleep sites.

TONKON TORP LLP
PORTLAND, OR 97204
503.221.1440
1 o Successfully advocated for funding to make major updates to Ya Po
2 Yah Terrace, a low-income senior apartment complex serving hundreds
3 of residents, as well as city investments in Square One Villages
4 projects, Homes for Good, and St. Vincent de Paul housing projects.
5 b. Support for public safety
6 o Supported adoption of the Community Safety Initiative payroll tax to
7 provide more 911 dispatchers, police officers, community safety officers
8 as well as non-police interventions to improve response times and

9 capacity of our police department.
10 o Supported recommendation from the firefighter union and department
11 leadership to revamp ambulance services to provide better service to
12 the community.
13 c. Making streets safer
14 o Supported transportation system improvements for pedestrians,
15 bicyclists, drivers, and bus riders.
16 o Led the adoption of the Vision Zero plan which aims to reduce serious
17 injuries and deaths on city streets.
18 o Worked to improve reliable transportation options for people with
19 disabilities, who are low income or who choose not to drive.
20 o Championed alternative transportation options as an important
21 strategy for reducing carbon emissions as part of City of Eugene’s
22 Climate Action Plan.
23 d. Addressing climate change
24 o Leader in City of Eugene efforts to reduce the use of fossil fuels in our
25 buildings, to include banning fossil fuel infrastructure in new
26 residential development.
TONKON TORP LLP
PORTLAND, OR 97204
503.221.1440
1 o Supports policies that provide for growing more densely rather than
2 sprawling out, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
3 o Secured $10,000 for planting hundreds of additional street trees in
4 Bethel.
5 e. Protecting working families
6 o Led the effort to pass City of Eugene’s paid sick leave ordinance,
7 paving the way for statewide adoption.
8 o Helped ensure passage of phase one renter protection, which reduces

9 application fees among other protections. Will continue to fight for
10 greater renter protection when phase two comes to council later in
11 2022 including displacement assistance for no-cause evictions.
12 o Currently leading efforts to regulate chronic toxic polluters including:
13  Advanced an ordinance that will regulate vibrations caused by
14 industrial activity. This is especially important to residents
15 impacted by Zip-O-Laminators in the River Road area.
16  Co-initiated a work session on creating a Public Health Overlay
17 zone which will guide city decisions regarding industrial
18 activities near residential areas.
19 16.
20 Councilor Syrett’s current term as a Eugene City Councilor runs until
21 January 2025. Should Councilor Syrett decide to run for another term, the
22 Candidate Committee intends to support her candidacy.
23 MOVINGAHEAD
24 17.
25 MovingAhead is a partnership between the City of Eugene, Lane Transit
26 District (“LTD”), Oregon Department of Transportation, Lane County, and others

TONKON TORP LLP
PORTLAND, OR 97204
503.221.1440
1 formed to study and prioritize investment options on key corridors to improve safety
2 and access for people walking, biking, using mobility devices, and riding public
3 transit. The project aligns with and builds on local plans and policies, including
4 Envision Eugene, Eugene’s 2035 Transportation System Plan, Eugene’s Vision Zero
5 Action Plan, Eugene’s Climate Recovery Ordinance, and LTD’s Long Range Transit
6 Plan and Frequent Transit Network.
7 18.
8 MovingAhead is focused on better connecting people to jobs, schools,

9 shopping, recreation, and other activities by considering a range of transportation
10 investments along key corridors to improve safety and livability for everyone.
11 MovingAhead builds on community input and local planning projects like Envision
12 Eugene, Eugene’s Transportation System Plan, and LTD’s Long-Range Transit
13 Plan.
14 19.
15 MovingAhead began soliciting community input no later than May 18, 2015.
16 MovingAhead’s efforts to facilitate community participation have included
17 presentations and workshops focused on specific corridors, oversight committee
18 meetings, sounding board meetings, open houses, attending in neighborhood
19 association meetings, participating in community events such as Parties in the
20 Parks, and presenting at public meetings of the Eugene City Council and LTD
21 Board of Directors. Some of this outreach is summarized in the MovingAhead
22 Outreach Summary, attached as Exhibit 4, the contents of which are incorporated
23 herein by reference.
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
TONKON TORP LLP
PORTLAND, OR 97204
503.221.1440
1 20.
2 Based on community feedback, MovingAhead is exploring options along five
3 key corridors: Highway 99, River Road, 30th Avenue to Lane Community College,
4 Coburg Road, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard.
5 21.
6 MovingAhead released its Alternatives Analysis Report including an
7 Executive Summary, a Full Alternatives Analysis Report, a Book of Project aps, and
8 various References and Supporting Documents (together the “Report”), including

9 publishing the Report at http://www.movingahead.org/alternatives-analysis-report/,
10 in September of 2018. MovingAhead solicited formal public comments on the
11 Report and summarized and responded to all of the comments received in a
12 Comment-Response Report dated May 1, 2021, a copy which is attached as
13 Exhibit 5 and the contents of which are incorporated herein.
14 22.
15 On February 28, 2022, MovingAhead presented to the Eugene City Council
16 and LTD Board at a joint work session to update the Council and Board, and share
17 the recommendations from the project’s committees.
18 23.
19 On March 14, 2022, the Eugene City Council adopted Resolution No. 5352, “A
20 RESOLUTION APPROVING OF MOVINGAHEAD LOCALLY PREFERRED
21 ALTERNATIVES,” a copy of which is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 6 (the
22 “MovingAhead Resolution”) and the contents of which are incorporated herein by
23 reference. Councilor Syrett was among the six Councilors voting in favor; one voted
24 against and one was absent. On March 16, 2022, the LTD Board discussed and
25 voted unanimously to adopt the selection of locally preferred alternatives.
26
TONKON TORP LLP
PORTLAND, OR 97204
503.221.1440
1 24.
2 As described by one City Councilor and reported on a local news broadcast
3 segment which can be viewed at https://nbc16.com/news/local/movingahead-
4 recommendations-approved-by-eugene-city-council, what the Moving Ahead
5 Resolution approves “is a plan; it’s not an approved done deal. It’s a way to
6 prioritize and look for money and work on plans, and there will still be input.” The
7 MovingAhead Resolution does not authorize the expenditure of any funds; it does
8 not authorize the construction or removal of any infrastructure or structures; it does

9 not authorize the seizure of any private property from individuals or businesses; it
10 does not authorize removing any lanes on River Road; it does not authorize
11 dedicating any lanes of River Road for EmX buses; it does not authorize removal of
12 any trees or parking; and it does not authorize any implementation of any
13 recommendations, all of which would require further action by the City Council.
14 DEFENDANTS PUBLISH FALSE STATEMENTS IN SUPPORT OF RECALL
15 25.
16 On or about April 25, 2022, Defendant Morton filed a Prospective Petition to
17 Recall Councilor Syrett from office (the “Prospective Petition”) with the Oregon
18 Elections Division using a standard Form SEL 350, a copy of which is attached as
19 Exhibit 7 and the contents of which are incorporated herein.
20 26.
21 Form SEL 350 requires a “Statement” and instructs that the petition
22 “Provide the reasons for demanding recall in 200 words or less. Any factual
23 information provided must be true.” Defendant Morton included the following
24 statement in the Prospective Petition (the “Prospective Petition Statement”):
25 Claire Syrett voted to advance the multimillion dollar

MovingAhead project that will remove two lanes for cars on
26 River Road and replace them with dedicated EmX bus lanes.
TONKON TORP LLP
PORTLAND, OR 97204
503.221.1440
This will leave only one lane for cars in each direction and take
1
substantial private property from businesses and residences,
2 including removal of parking and trees. Traffic congestion will
increase. Syrett is ignoring the facts concerning opposition she
3 received. On 28 February 2022 she said, “I don’t believe I have
received one communication from a property owner along River
4
Road who has concerns about this proposal.” Five days earlier,
5 over 150 petitions against MovingAhead, signed by people in
and near her ward including numerous people living and
6 working on River Road, were delivered for her to the City
Manager’s office. She also received notes and emails in
7
opposition. Syrett supports MovingAhead’s EmX plan despite
8 the fact that taxes will need to increase to support operations
and maintenance for a system which cannot be re-routed to
9 accommodate changes in ridership. Bus ridership has declined
nationwide since 2012 despite increases in population. Syrett
10
supports an EmX system not wanted and not responsive to new
11 eco-friendly transportation alternatives.
12 27.
13 The Prospective Petition Statement includes the following factual
14 statements, each of which is false:
15 a. False statement: “Claire Syrett voted to advance the

multimillion dollar MovingAhead project that will remove
16 two lanes for cars on River Road and replace them with
dedicated EmX bus lanes.”
17
Truth: MovingAhead is still in the planning/proposal
18 stage. It does not approve or implement any specific
project. The actual configuration of EmX on River Road
19 has not been determined.
20 b. False statement: “This will leave only one lane for cars in
each direction and take substantial private property from
21
businesses and residences, including removal of parking and
22 trees.”
Truth: The passage of the MovingAhead Resolution has
23
not authorized any changes to the transportation
24 infrastructure, including taking of private property or tree
removal; only an actual authorized project could do that.
25 The extent to which any private property, if any, may be
impacted should a transportation project be implemented
26
on River Road is not known at this time.
TONKON TORP LLP
PORTLAND, OR 97204
503.221.1440
c. False statement: “Traffic congestion will increase.”
1
Truth: The purpose of the MovingAhead planning project
2 is to consider proposals that will reduce traffic congestion.
3 d. False statement: “Syrett supports MovingAhead’s EmX plan
despite the fact that taxes will need to increase to support
4 operations and maintenance for a system which cannot be re-
5 routed to accommodate changes in ridership.”
Truth: This statement is false because, while the
6 WorkingAhead project’s mandate includes identifying
7 funding sources from existing state resources and federal
matching programs, not from local taxes. Whether LTD
8 transit tax, which funds transit operations, will need to be
increased to support MovingAhead proposals is not known
9
at this time.
10 28.
11 Form SEL 350 requires the petitioner to attest by way of signing that “By
12 signing this document, I hereby state that any factual information (not a matter of
13 opinion) in the above statement is true.” Defendant Morton signed the Prospective
14 Petition attesting that any factual information in the Prospective Petition
15 Statement was true as required.
16 29.
17 Defendants Osterloh, Maxwell, and Morton (the “Petitioner Defendants”)
18 formed the Recall Committee on or about April 25, 2022. Since then, the Recall
19 Committee has reported contributions in the following amounts from the following
20 individuals:
21
Date Contributor(s) Type Amount
22 7/23/2022 Not Disclosed Cash $100.00
23 7/18/2022 Eugene Business Alliance Cash $4,750.00
25 7/13/2022 Lube It USA Cash $168.56

7/13/2022 Graffiti Alley Cash $134.83
26
TONKON TORP LLP
PORTLAND, OR 97204
503.221.1440
1
7/13/2022 1280 Oak, LLC Cash $500.00
2
7/12/2022 Kelly’s Home Center Cash $500.00
3
7/12/2022 Not Disclosed Cash $67.43
5 In-
7/6/2022 Meta Maxwell $10.00
Kind
6
In-
7 7/6/2022 Meta Maxwell $131.47
Kind
8 Specialty Crate and Pallet
7/6/2022 Cash $250.00
Inc.
9
7/5/2022 Emerald Building Cash $500.00
10
7/5/2022 C & E Rentals Cash $500.00
11 In-
7/5/2022 Meta Maxwell $115.75
12 Kind
In-
13 7/2/2022 Meta Maxwell $31.79
Kind
14 6/30/2022 Brent Laing Cash $500.00
17 6/17/2022 J.P. Hammer Cash $500.00

In-
18 6/16/2022 Mark Osterloh $7.39
Kind
19 In-
6/14/2022 Meta Maxwell $36.00
Kind
20
In-
21 6/9/2022 Meta Maxwell $48.99
Kind
22 In-
6/6/2022 Meta Maxwell $55.48
Kind
23
In-
24 6/6/2022 Meta Maxwell $221.92
Kind
25 6/1/2022 J.P. Hammer Cash $500.00
26
TONKON TORP LLP
PORTLAND, OR 97204
503.221.1440
1
In-
2 5/27/2022 Mark Osterloh $34.99
Kind
3 In-
5/27/2022 Not Disclosed $28.40
Kind
4
In-
5 5/8/2022 Meta Maxwell $34.99
Kind
6 In-
5/8/2022 Meta Maxwell $71.49
Kind
7
In-
8 5/8/2022 Meta Maxwell $84.80
Kind
9 In-
5/8/2022 Mark Osterloh $6.74
Kind
10
In-
5/8/2022 Mark Osterloh $30.48
11 Kind
14 30.
15 On or about May 7, 2022, Defendant Maxwell caused the publication of the
16 following statements at https://wholecommunity.news/2022/05/07/recall-claire-
17 syrett-campaign-launches-with-signature-drive-may-7/, ”)¸a printout of which is
18 attached as Ex. 8 and the contents of which are incorporated herein:
19 (the “Recall Post Statements”):
20 The Eugene City Recorder has approved circulation of a petition
to Recall Claire Syrett, Eugene City Councilor, Ward 7.
21
On the petitions, the Statement “Reasons for demanding recall”
22 reads:
23
Claire Syrett voted to advance the multimillion dollar
24 MovingAhead project that will remove two lanes for cars on
River Road and replace them with dedicated EmX bus and turn
25 lanes. This will leave only one lane for cars in each direction for
26 direct traffic and take private property from businesses and
TONKON TORP LLP
PORTLAND, OR 97204
503.221.1440
residences, including removal of parking and trees. Traffic
1
congestion may increase.
2
Syrett is ignoring the facts concerning opposition she has
3 received. On 28 February 2022 she said, “I don’t believe I have
received one communication from a property owner along River
4
Road who has concerns about this proposal.”
5
Five days earlier, over 150 petitions against MovingAhead,
6 signed by people in and near her ward including numerous
people living and working on River Road, were delivered for her
7
to the City Manager’s office. She also received notes and emails
8 in opposition.
9 Syrett supports MovingAhead’s EmX plan despite the fact that

taxes may need to increase to support operations and
10
maintenance for a system which cannot be re-routed to
11 accommodate changes in ridership. Bus ridership has declined
12 supports an EmX system many feel is not wanted and not
responsive to new eco-friendly transportation alternatives.
13
14 Signature gatherers for the petition will be knocking on doors of

registered voters in Ward 7 beginning Saturday, May 7. They
15 will be wearing buttons saying, “Stop MovingAhead.”
16
To sign a petition, Voters Registered in Ward 7 may also stop by
17 Graffiti Alley, 675 River Road, 11am to 7 pm Tuesday through
Friday, or 4 pm to 6 pm Saturday. People wanting more
18 information or to schedule a time to sign a petition, should visit
http://clairesyrettrecall.com, email: SyrettRecall@gmail.com or
19
call 541-731-9161.
20
Syrett may be ignoring the will of the people in and near her
21 district, as well as the facts regarding LTD’s failed EmX lines,
by pushing for:
22
23 • Removal of two lanes for cars on River Road;

• Cutting down 112-132 established trees to accommodate
24 dedicated EmX lanes;
• Elimination of parking for businesses;
25
• Taking of private property from homeowners;
26
TONKON TORP LLP
PORTLAND, OR 97204
503.221.1440
• Purchase of 60-foot non-electric articulated buses that
1
cannot be re-routed when smaller more eco-friendly buses
2 are currently running near empty;
• Construction of extensive environmentally unfriendly
3 concrete infrastructure [which releases large quantities of
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere] for dedicated EmX
4
lanes when existing infrastructure, including bus pull-
5 outs, is sufficient to meet needs;
• Ignoring the challenges of EmX lines on W. 11th and
6 Gateway loop that since 2007 have never come close to
ridership projections, have had cost overruns, and
7
necessitated cutting other desired bus routes in the city.
8
Syrett may be ignoring the will of constituents who, for
9 convenience, health, and safety reasons, will continue to choose
affordable alternatives to riding a bus where they exist. Syrett
10
also has been promoting EmX — the expanded bus rapid transit
11 system — instead of eco-friendly transportation alternatives:
smaller electric and carbon-neutral buses that can be re-routed
12 to meet the population’s needs, private electric vehicles, Uber
and Lyft (both converting to carbon-neutral fleets), all electric
13
taxies, Arcimoto, organized carpooling, car sharing, biking,
14 efficient motor-bikes, and many newer on-demand alternatives.
It’s time to start holding City Councilors responsible for making
15 informed decisions that meet the needs in the community within
existing budgets.
16
17 For more information, see http://clairesyrettrecall.com, email:

SyrettRecall@gmail.com or call 541-731-9161.
18
19 31.
20 No later than July 9, 2022 and continuing through the date of this
21 Complaint, the Petitioner Defendants have caused the publication of the following
22 statement at http://clairesyrettrecall.com (the “Recall Website” and the “Website
23 Statement”), as shown in an Internet Archive WayBackMachine capture of the
24 Recall Website dated July 9, 2022, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 9 and the
25 contents of which are incorporated herein by reference.

Claire Syrett voted to advance the multmillion dollar
26
MovingAhead project that will remove two lanes for cars on
TONKON TORP LLP
PORTLAND, OR 97204
503.221.1440
River Road and replace them with dedicated EmX bus lanes.
1
This will leave only one lane for cars in each direction and take
2 substantial private property from businesses and residents,
including removal of parking and trees. Traffic congestion will
3 increase. Syrett is ignoring the facts concerning opposition she
has received. On 28 February 2022 she said, “I don’t believe I
4
have received one communication from a property owner along
5 River Road who has concerns about this proposal.” Five days
earlier, over 150 petitions against MovingAhead, signed by
6 people in and near her Ward including numerous people living
and working on River Road, were delivered for her to the City
7
Manager’s office. She also received notes and emails in
8 opposition. Syrett supports MovingAhead’s EmX plan despite
the fact that taxes will need to increase to support operations
9 and maintenance for a system which cannot be rerouted to
accommodate changes in ridership. Bus ridership has declined
10
11 supports an EmX system not wanted and not responsive to new
eco-friendly transportation alternatives.
12
32.
13
Petitioner Defendants solicited signatures in support of the Recall Petition
14
including a request posted on the Recall Website and in-person requests in door-to-
15
door canvassing. One voter who signed the Petition was only informed that her
16
signature indicated support of recalling Councilor Syrett from office after she had
17
signed it, having been told only that her signature would prevent the removal of car
18
lanes on River Road. A copy of his email to Councilor Syrett is attached as
19
Exhibit 10 and its contents are incorporated by reference herein. This is not the
20
only constituent who reported to Councilor Syrett that they were urged to sign the
21
Prospective Petition under false pretenses.
22
33.
23
On or about July 21, 2022, Defendant Osterloh delivered 2,000 signatures in
24
support of the Prospective Petition as reported at https://nbc16.com/news/local/2000-
25
signatures-delivered-in-effort-to-recall-eugene-city-councilor-claire-syrett.
26
TONKON TORP LLP
PORTLAND, OR 97204
503.221.1440
1 FALSE STATEMENTS FORCE UNNECESSARY, INVALID ELECTION
2 34.
3 On or about August 1, 2022, the Eugene City Recorder certified that a
4 sufficient number of the signatures submitted were valid and that the Prospective
5 Petition therefore qualified and required initiation of a recall election.
6 35.
7 On August 18, 2022, the Lane County Elections Division will mail ballots to
8 Ward 7 voters which contain the false statements included in the Petition
9 Statement. Voters must return ballots by September 6, 2022, and the City Recorder
10 has been directed to certify the results by October 3, 2022.
11 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
12 (False Publication Relating to a Candidate or Election in Violation of
13 ORS 260.532)
14 (Against all Defendants)
15 36.
16 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations in the above paragraphs as
17 if fully set forth herein.
18 37.
19 The Oregon Corrupt Practices Act was established over 100 years ago. As it
20 exists today, ORS 260.532 prohibits publication of false statements in connection
21 with an election, imposes monetary liability for $2,500 plus attorney fees against
22 defendants who pay for the publication of such statements, whether alone or
23 together with others, and empowers Circuit Courts to order appropriate equitable
24 relief.
25 ///
26 ///
TONKON TORP LLP
PORTLAND, OR 97204
503.221.1440
1 38.
2 Councilor Syrett is a candidate in a recall election as that term is defined in
3 ORS 260.005(1)(a)(C).
4 39.
5 Defendant Morton signed an attestation to the truth of the factual
6 statements contained in the Prospective Petition Statement under penalty of
7 perjury. On information and belief, all petitions circulated by Petitioner
8 Defendants, which voters signed, contained the false statements described on the
9 Prospective Petition. On information and belief, Petitioner Defendants
10 disseminated additional false statements in writing while soliciting signatures.
11 40.
12 Beginning on May 7, 2022 and continuing through the date of this Complaint,
13 Defendant Maxwell caused the publication of the false statements of fact contained
14 in the Maxwell Post Statements.
15 41.
16 No later than July 9, 2022 and continuing through the date of this
17 Complaint, Petitioner Defendants have caused the publication of the false
18 statement of fact in the Website Statement on the Recall Website.
19 42.
20 Petitioner Defendants caused publication of the above statements in order to
21 solicit signatures in support of the Prospective Petition from at least 2,000
22 individuals.
23 43.
24 Petitioner Defendants’ published statements alleged above contain false
25 statements of material fact in support of their effort to recall Councilor Syrett from
26 her elected position as City of Eugene Councilor, Ward 7. These statements make
TONKON TORP LLP
PORTLAND, OR 97204
503.221.1440
1 assertions of objective fact that are false and cannot reasonably be interpreted in
2 any manner that would make them factually correct. The falsity of these
3 statements is substantiated by the attached Exhibits, which evidence what the
4 MovingAhead project is and what it has done, what the MovingAhead Resolution
5 does and does not do, and what the Petitioner Defendants have stated regarding
6 Councilor Syrett and the MovingAhead Resolution.
7 44.
8 Petitioner Defendants’ statements were material because they already have

9 or could influence significantly the hearer’s decision-making process. This
10 allegation is substantiated by the attached exhibits including Exhibit 10, in which a
11 signatory to the Prospective Petition explicitly states that Petitioner Defendants’
12 statements caused him to sign the Prospective Petition, and by Exhibits evidencing
13 the statements themselves, which on their face are intended to influence voters and
14 cause them to support the Recall Petition.
15 45.
16 Defendants, with knowledge of the statements’ falsity or with reckless
17 disregard for the truth of the statements, caused these false statements of material
18 fact to be written, printed, published and circulated, in violation of ORS 260.532(1).
19 The allegations in this paragraph are substantiated by the attached Exhibits
20 evidencing the publicly available facts regarding MovingAhead and the
21 MovingAhead Resolution and the Exhibits evidencing the statements made by
22 Petitioner Defendants.
23 46.
24 Petitioner Defendants, Defendant Hammer, and Defendant EBA (together,
25 “Funding Defendants”), with knowledge or with reckless disregard for the falsity of
26 the Petition Statement, singly or with others, paid for advertisement of the false
TONKON TORP LLP
PORTLAND, OR 97204
503.221.1440
1 statements of material fact above in violation of ORS 260.532(1). The allegations in
2 this paragraph are substantiated by the attached exhibits including Exhibit 11,
3 which evidences contributions to the Recall Committee by Funding Defendants, and
4 by other individuals and business entities against whom claims have not yet been
5 asserted.
6 47.
7 As provided by ORS 260.532(5), Plaintiffs each have a right of action against
8 Defendants for these violations of ORS 260.532(1).

9 48.
10 As a direct result of Defendants’ violations of ORS 260.532, Councilor Syrett
11 and the Candidate Committee have suffered noneconomic damages. Pursuant to
12 ORS 250.532(6) Plaintiffs are entitled to a monetary award of actual noneconomic
13 damages or $2,500, whichever is greater.
14 49.
15 Proceedings on a complaint filed pursuant to ORS 260.532(9) “shall have
16 precedence over all other business on the docket” and Plaintiffs accordingly request
17 that the relief Plaintiffs request in this Complaint be given expedited treatment.
18 50.
19 Plaintiffs request that the Court issue an order pursuant to its authority
20 under ORS 260.532(6) enjoining Nominal Defendant Lane County Elections
21 Division from counting any ballots received in connection with the recall election
22 unless and until it is so directed by the Court.
23 51.
24 Plaintiffs request that the Court issue an order pursuant its authority under
25 ORS 260.532(6) enjoining Nominal Defendant Eugene City Recorder from certifying
26 any results from the recall election unless and until it is so directed by the Court.
TONKON TORP LLP
PORTLAND, OR 97204
503.221.1440
1 52.
2 Pursuant to ORS 260.532(6), Plaintiffs request an order that the Petitioner
3 Defendants issue a retraction of the false statements described herein to be
4 disseminated to all eligible voters in Ward 7 of the City of Eugene and all
5 contributors to the Recall Committee, published on the Recall Website,
6 disseminated to any person to whom any such statement has been made by email or
7 other electronic means, and disseminated and published as otherwise directed by
8 this Court.
9 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
10 (Declaratory Judgment Pursuant to ORS ORS 28.010 et. seq.)
11 53.
12 Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations in the above paragraphs as
13 if fully set forth herein.
14 54.
15 An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties
16 concerning the validity of the scheduled special election to recall Councilor Syrett
17 from office, whether the Lane County Elections Division is authorized and required
18 to mail and count ballots related to the recall election, and whether the City
19 Recorder is authorized and required to certify the results of the recall election.
20 55.
21 Petitioner Defendants assert that the statements in the Prospective Petition
22 are true, the Petition, its certification, and the scheduled election are valid, that the
23 Lane County Elections Division is required and authorized to mail and count ballots
24 related to the recall election, and that the City Recorder is authorized and required
25 to certify the results of the recall election. Based on the facts alleged in this
26 Complaint, Plaintiffs dispute these all of these assertions.

TONKON TORP LLP
PORTLAND, OR 97204
503.221.1440
1 56.
2 On information and belief, Lane County Elections Division has concluded
3 that is required and authorized to mail and count ballots related to the recall
4 election. Based on the facts alleged in this Complaint, Plaintiffs dispute this
5 conclusion.
6 57.
7 On information and belief, the Eugene City Recorder has concluded that it is
8 authorized and required to certify the results of the recall election. Based on the
9 facts alleged in this Complaint, Plaintiffs dispute this conclusion.
10 58.
11 Pursuant to ORS 28.010 et. seq., Plaintiffs are entitled to a judicial
12 determination regarding the validity of the Prospective Petition, the validity of the
13 certification of the Petition, the validity of the recall election, and the authorization
14 and requirement for Nominal Defendants to act as described above. In particular,
15 Claire Syrett for Eugene City Council and Councilor Syrett are entitled to a
16 declaration from this Court declaring the following:
17 a. The Prospective Petition is invalid because it contains false
18 statements of material fact in violation of Oregon law;
19 b. The certification of the Prospective Petition was invalid;
20 c. The special election to recall Councilor Syrett is invalid;
21 d. The Lane County Elections Division is not authorized to mail or
22 count ballots related to the recall election; and
23 e. The Eugene City Recorder is not authorized to certify the results
24 of the recall election.
25
26
TONKON TORP LLP
PORTLAND, OR 97204
503.221.1440
1 CLAIM FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
2 59.
3 The Candidate Committee has been required to incur costs and pay attorneys
4 to protect its rights and to protect the integrity of the electoral process in this
5 matter and is thus is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs
6 pursuant to ORS 260.532(6).
7 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
8 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:

9 1. An order enjoining the Lane County Elections Division from taking
10 any further action related to the recall election including the mailing or counting of
11 ballots;
12 2. An order enjoining the Eugene City Recorder from certifying the
13 results of any election based on the Petition;
14 3. An award of damages of $2,500, or such amounts as may be proven at
15 trial, in favor of the Candidate Committee and against each of Defendants Recall
16 Claire Syrett; JP Hammer; Meta Maxwell; Gerald Morton; Mark Osterloh; and
17 Eugene Business Alliance, jointly and severally;
18 4. An award of their attorneys’ fees and costs incurred herein against
19 Defendants Recall Claire Syrett; JP Hammer; Meta Maxwell; Gerald Morton; Mark
20 Osterloh; and Eugene Business Alliance, jointly and severally;
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
TONKON TORP LLP
PORTLAND, OR 97204
503.221.1440
1 5. A judgment making the declarations demanded above; and
2 6. Such other relief as the Court deems just, equitable, and proper.
3 DATED: August 18, 2022.

TONKON TORP LLP
4
5
By: /s/ Alexander M. Tinker
6 Jon P. Stride, OSB No. 903887
Direct: 503.802.2034
7 Email: jon.stride@tonkon.com
Alexander M. Tinker, OSB No. 144939
8
Direct: 503.802.5734
9 Email: alex.tinker@tonkon.com
Antonija Krizanac, OSB No. 193984
10 Direct: 503.802.2038
Email: antonija.krizanac@tonkon.com
11
888 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 1600
12 Portland, OR 97204
Facsimile: 503.274.8779
13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
097204\97204\13927452v1
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
TONKON TORP LLP
PORTLAND, OR 97204
503.221.1440
Summary Report Lane County, Oregon OFFICIAL FINAL RESULTS
General El ection
November 6. 2012
Run Date.: 11/21/12 11: 19 AM Report EL45 Page 001
VOTES PERCENT VOTES PERCENT
PRECINCTS COUNTED (OF 91) 91 100 .00 Attorney General

REGISTERED VOTERS · TOTAL 214.259 Vote for 1
BALLOTS CAST · TOTAL. 173.673 Chris Henry (PRO). 2.908 1.89
VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL 81.06 James L Buchal (REP). 52.470 34.17
James E Leuenberger (CON) 4.238 2.76
United States President and Vi ce President Ellen Rosenblum (DEM) 93 .658 60.99
Vote for 1 WRITE- IN. 280 .18
Barack Obama (DEM) 102.652 59.73 Over Votes 18
Jill Stein (PAC) . 2.334 1.36 Under Votes 19,672
Ross C (Rocky) Anderson (PRO). 357 .21
Gary Johnson (LBT) 2.435 1.42
Mitt Romney (REP). 62.509 36.37 State Senator. 5th District
Will Christensen (CON) 367 .21 Vote for 1
WRITE-IN. 1.196 .70 Scott Roberts CREP) 4.213 45.41
Over Votes 111 Arnie Roblan (DEM) 5.054 54.48
Under Votes 1.712 WRITE-IN . 10 .11
Over Votes 1
Under Votes 695
Representative in Congress. 4th District
Vote for 1
Peter A DeFazio (DEM) 113.547 67.17 State Representative. 7th District
Chuck Huntting (LBT). 2.453 1.45 Vote for 1
Art Robinson (REP) 52.872 31.28 Bruce Hanna (REP). 7,922 62 .19
WRITE-IN. 176 .10 Fergus Mclean (DEM) 4.764 37.40
Over Votes 26 ~/RITE- IN. 53 .42
Under Votes 4.599 Over Votes 2
Under Votes 2.302
Secretary of State
Vote for 1 State Representative. 8th District
Seth Woolley (PAC) 4.468 2.80 Vote for 1
Robert Wolfe (PRO) 1.970 1. 23 Paul R Holvey (DEM) . 21.681 70.63
Bruce Alexander Knight CLBT) 2.282 1.43 Aaron Baker (REP). 8.014 26.11
Kate Brown (DEM) . 90,434 56.60 Lucian Blansett CCON) 946 3.08
Knute Buehler <REP) 60.380 37.79 WRITE-IN. 54 .18
WRITE-IN. 246 .15 Over Votes 2
Over Votes 25 Under Votes 5,228
Under Votes 13.439
State Representative. 9th District

State Treasurer Vote for 1
Vote for 1 Caddy McKeown (DEM) . 4.865 53.22
Ted Wheeler (DEM). 96.010 61. 77 Nancy Brouhard (REP). 4.072 44.54
Cameron Whitten (PRO) 3,753 2.41 Guy Rosinbaum CLBT) 197 2.15
John F Mahler CLBn . 2,958 1.90 WRITE-IN. 8 .09
Michael Paul Marsh (CON) 1.243 .80 Over Votes 0
Tom Cox CREP) 51. 253 32.98 Under Votes 831
WRITE-IN. 208 .13
Over Votes 21
Under Votes 17.798 State Representative. 11th District
Vote for 1
Phil Barnhart (DEM) . 13.651 62.36
Kelly Lovelace CREP). 8.177 37.36
WRITE-IN. 61 .28
Over Votes 1
Under Votes 3.352
Exhibit 1
Page 1 of 8
General Election
November 6, 2012
Run Date:11/21/12 11:19 AM Report EL45 Page 002
State Representative . 12th District Circuit Court Judge 2nd District . Pos. 7
Vote for 1 Vote for 1
Joe Pishioneri CREP). 10.442 45.94 NO CANDIDATE FI LED . . . . . . 0
John Lively CDEM). 12.213 53.74 WRITE-IN. :5"D>'( .V'0 cf\\e\.YI. )' 39 .285 100.00
WRITE-IN. 73 . 32 Over Votes . . . t '2. . l \.5 ?- . 0
Over Votes 6 Under Votes . 133.959
Under Votes 2.373
Circuit Court Judge 2nd District. Pos. 8

State Representative. 13th District Vote for 1
Vote for 1 Valeri L Love 76 .141 98.00
Nancy Nathanson (DEM) 19.110 68.70 WRITE-IN. 1.552 2.00
Mark Callahan (REP) 8,651 31.10 Over Votes 6
WRITE-IN. 56 .20 Under Votes 95.545
Over Votes 0
Under Votes 4,606
Circuit Court Judge 2nd District. Pos. 12
Vote for 1
State Representati ve, 14th District R Curtis Conover 71.480 98.13
Vote for 1 WRITE-IN . 1.365 1.87
Val Hoyle CDEM) 14.413 54.29 Over Votes 7
Sharon A Mahler CLBT) 790 2.98 Under Votes 100,392
Dwight Coon (REP). 11.309 42.60
WRITE-IN. 38 .14
Over Votes 8 Sheriff
Under Votes 2.973 Vote for 1
Thomas Turner 84 .146 97.38
WRITE-IN. 2.263 2.62
Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Ind. Over Votes 8
Vote for 1 Under Votes 86.827
Bruce Starr. 48 .926 42.71
Brad Avakian 64 .751 56.52
WRITE-IN . 890 .78 South Commissioner. Position 3
Over Votes 46 Vote for 1
Under Votes 58.631 Pete Sorenson 19, 748 97.02
WRITE- IN . 606 2.98
Over Votes 1
Supreme Court Judge Pos. 3 Under Votes 16.052
Vote for 1
Richard C Baldwin. 63.532 57.43
Nena Cook 46,226 41. 79 North Commissioner, Position 4
WRITE -IN. 861 .78 Vote for 1
Over Votes 43 Pat Farr. 16,326 95.33
Under Votes 62.582 WRITE-IN. 799 4.67
Over Votes 2
Under Votes 18,499
Appeals Court Judge Pos. 6
Vote for 1
James C Egan 66 .082 62.05 Coburg Mayor
Tim Volpert. 39 .502 37.09 Vote for 1
WRITE-IN. 911 .86 Jae Pudewell 320 85.56
Over Votes 31 WRITE-IN. 54 14.44
Under Votes 66,718 Over Votes 0
Under Votes 206
Exhibit 1
Page 2 of 8
Summary Report Lane County. Oregon OFFICIAL FINAL RESULTS
General Election
November 6. 2012
Run Date:ll/21/12 11:19 AM Report EL45 Page 003
Coburg Councilors Creswell Mayor

Ray Smith 296 30.83 A J O'Connell 547 28.36
Sharyl Abbaspour 244 25.42 David Stram . 903 46.81
Jerry Behney 250 26.04 Bob Hooker . 91 4.72
Chalmers D Blatch. Jr 128 13.33 Martha Ottilie McReynolds 239 12.39
WRITE-IN. 42 4.38 Brent D Gifford 144 7.47
Over Votes 3 WRITE· IN. 5 .26
Under Votes 777 Over Votes 1
Under Votes 202
Cottage Grove Mayor

Vote for 1 Creswell Councilors
Mike Fleck . 1.022 33.61 Vote for 3
Thomas C Munroe 1.133 37.26 Jacob Daniels . 1.161 27 .86
Diane Conrad 859 28.25 Alan G Pointer. 499 11.98
WRITE- IN. 27 .89 Jane Vincent 753 18.07
Over Votes 0 Nora Reynolds 830 19.92
Under Votes 702 Roy Robertson 599 14.37
Jack L Gradle 258 6.19
WRITE· IN. 67 1. 61
Cottage Grove Councilor Ward 2 Over Votes 6
Vote for 1 Under Votes 2.223
Rob Scoggin . 1.220 48 .15
Jeff Gowing . 1.299 51.26
WRITE- IN. 15 .59 Dunes City Mayor
Under Votes 1.209 Rebecca Ruede 586 83 .71
WRITE· IN. 114 16.29
Over Votes 0
Cottage Grove Councilor Ward 4 Under Votes 178
Vote for 1
James LeVar . 829 36 .39
Kate Coy. 1.435 62.99 Dunes Ci ty Councilors
WRITE- IN. 14 .61 Vote for 3
Over Votes 0 Maurice K Sanders. 547 31. 35
Under Votes 1,465 Ed D Scarberry. 521 29.86
Jamie L Mills 519 29.74
WRITE-IN . 158 9.05
Cottage Grove Councilor At-Large Over Votes 0
Vote for 1 Under Votes 889
Bob Ehler 542 20.97
Heather Murphy . 854 33.04
Darby Valley 365 14 .12 Eugene Mayor
Susan Rosentha 1 812 31.41 Vote for 1
WRITE· IN. 12 .46 Kitty Piercy 42.862 84.10
Over Votes 1 WRITE·IN. 8.104 15.90
. Under Votes 1.157 Over Votes 11
Under Votes 27. 913
Eugene Councilor . Ward 1

Vote for 1
George Brown 4.720 96.27
WRITE-IN. 183 3.73
Over Votes 0
Under Votes 5.885
Exhibit 1
Page 3 of 8
Summa.ry Report Lane County. Oregon OFFICIAL FINAL RESULTS
General Election
November 6, 2012
Run Date: ll/21/12 11: 19 AM Report EL45 Page 004
Eugene Councilor. Ward 2 Junction City Councilors

Betty L Taylor. 5,B84 56.91 Randy A Nel son . . 4.'f (· 1.003 19 .52
Juan Carl os Val le. 4.422 42 .77 Winn Wendel l 674 13 .12
WRITE· IN. 33 .32 Bi 11 Di Marco .2 .y:< 783 15 .24
Over Votes 2 Steve Hi t chcock . . . . 714 13 .90
Under Votes 1,990 Karen Leach. . LI.'{Y . 1, 022 19.89
Laurel Crenshaw . li. y..r . 859 16.72
\~RITE- IN. 83 1.62
Eugene Councilor. Ward 7 Over Votes 28
Vote for 1 Under Votes 4,166
Cl aire Syrett 3 .754 96. 90
WRITE· IN. 120 · 3.10
Over Votes 1 Lowell Counci l or Position 2
Under Votes 4;874 Vote for 1
Steve Paulson 261 57.62
Bi l l George . 192 42.38
Eugene Councilor . Ward 8 WRITE-IN . 0
Vote for 1 Over Votes 0
Chris Pryor . 4,023 97.17 Under Votes 36
WRITE· IN. 117 2.83
Over Votes 0
Under Votes 4.954 Lowel l Counci l or Position 3
Vote for 1
Jim Burford. 242 56 .67
Florence Mayor Jerry L Valencia 178 41.69
Vote for 1 WRITE-IN. 7 1. 64
Nola Xavier. 2.701 92.47 Over Votes 0
WRITE-IN. 220 7.53 Under Votes 62
Over Votes 0
Under Votes 1,506
Lowell Councilor Position 5
Vote for 1
Florence Councilors Idella Stinson. 188 43.32
Vote for 2 Marisa Al varez. 244 56.22
Joshua Greene . . . . . . . . . 2,462 79.83 WRITE-IN . 2 .46
WRITE- IN . Jo?.ef>""- l.~Dh. \-\£.Y'l<""\ Sv- 622 20 .17 Over Votes 0
Over Votes . . . . . Cl %(p) . . 0 Under Votes 55
Under Votes . 5,770
Oakridge Mayor
Junction City Mayor Vote for 1
Vote for 1 Geral d Gl enn Shorey .2 .'-/ r .U (\ ~ ¥ p 868 91.08
David S Brunscheen 1.460 94.07 WRITE- IN. 85 8.92
WRITE-IN. 92 5.93 Over Votes 1
Over Votes 0 Under Votes 326
Under Votes 781
Exhibit 1
Page 4 of 8
General Election
November 6. 2012
Oakridge Councilors Eugene Water & Electric Board Member Wards 2 &3
Christine Sl aven . 878 25.78 Dick Helgeson 8.542 97.62
Sherry E Klosterman 262 7.69 WRITE-IN. 20B 2.38
James F Affa 295 8.66 Over Votes 0
Donald Hadley . 311 9.13 Under Votes 12.203
Lester John Biggerstaff. 613 18.00
Dan Barclay. 378 11.10
Jim Coey. 649 19.05 Eugene Water &Electric Board Member Wards 6 &7
WRITE-IN. 20 .59 Vote for 1
Over Votes 6 James I Manning Jr 7,754 97.41
Under Votes 428 WRITE- IN. 206 2.59
Over Votes 3
Under Votes 9.553
Veneta Mayor
Vote for 1
Sandra H Larson 1.125 93.91 Springfield Utility Board Member Position 1
WRITE-IN . 73 6.09 Vote for 1
Over Votes 0 Ryan Stroup. 4.903 42 .36
Under Votes 721 Joe Mathi eu. 6.537 56 .48
~IRITE - IN. 134 1.16
Over Votes 7
Veneta Councilors Under Votes 11.415
Vote for 2
Victoria Hedenstrom 879 48.43
Thomas G. Lai ng. 873 48.10 Springfield Utility Board Member Position 5
WRITE-IN. 63 3.47 Vote for 1
Over Votes 0 Bobbie Jean Adams. 5.910 48. 77
Under Votes 2.023 Pat Riggs-Henson 6,087 50.23
WRITE-IN. 121 1.00
Over Votes 9
Westfir Mayor Under Votes 10.869
Vote for 1
Robert DeHarpport. 80 84.21
WRITE-IN. 15 15.79 Linn Soil &Water Director. Zone 2
Under Votes 27 Li z Vanleeuwen. 590 97.36
WRITE-IN. 16 2.64
Over Votes 0
Westfi r Councilors Under Votes 808
Vote for 2
Les 1i e Wi 1son . 77 46.11
Barbara A Desser 79 47.31 Linn Soi 1 &Water Director. Zone 4
Over Votes 0 Lucyann ~olbeda 570 98.45
Under Votes 77 WRITE-IN. 9 1.55
Over Votes 0
Under Votes 835
Eugene Water &Electric Board Member Wards 1 &8
Vote for 1
Steve Mital. 8.091 96 .61 Linn Soi l &Water Director. Zone 5
Over Votes 0 Aaron J Schumacher 568 98.10
Under Votes 11.507 . WRITE -IN. 11 1. 90
Over Votes 0
Under Votes 835
Exhibit 1
Page 5 of 8
General Election
November 6, 2012
Linn Soil &Water Director. At-Large 1 Central Lincoln PUD Director Subdivision 3
Janice H Horner 565 98.26 Curt Abbott. 627 90.09
WRITE-IN. 10 1. 74 WRITE-IN. 69 9.91
Over Votes 0 Over Votes 0
Under Votes 839 Under Votes 670
Siuslaw Soil &Water Director Zone 3 Central Lincoln PUD Director Subdivision 4
Kevin Carro11 4,982 98 .85 William Fl eenor 2.745 47.02
WRITE· IN . 58 1.15 Judy MMatheny. 3.072 52.62
Over Votes 1 \~RITE- IN. 21 .36
Under Votes 1.547
Siuslaw Soil &Water Director Position 1 At-Large

Vote for 1 Emerald PUD Director Subdivision 1
Richa rd D Huff. 5.046 98.84 Vote for 1
WRITE-IN. 59 1.16 Ron Davis 1.286 53.67
Over Votes 0 Hare Bass 1.092 45. 58
Under Votes 4.164 ~JRITE- IN. 18 .75
Over Votes 1
Under Votes 1.719
Upper Willamette Soil &Water Director Zone 2 .
Vote for 1
NO CANDIDATE FILED . . . . 0 Emerald PUD Director Subdivision 4
WRITE-IN. no. -p.V'e.- ~\.\a.\. :cc?..Y\~. 7.018 100.00 Vote for 1
Over Votes . . . . . . 0 Katherine Schacht. 1.259 49.45
Under Votes . 155.543 Mike McCluskey. 895 35.15
Eric Cramer. 379 14.89
WRITE-IN. 13 .51
Upper Willamette Soil & Water Director Zone 5 Over Votes 0
Ralph Perkins 62.102 98.42
WRITE-IN. 999 1.58
Over Votes 5 Emerald PUD Director Subdivision 5
Under Votes 99.455 Vote for 1
Howard Smith . 694 22.28
Laurie Smart . 1.094 35.12
Upper Willamette Soil &Water Director At-Large Pos.1 Penny Eymann Jordan 1.308 41.99
Vote for 1 WRITE-IN. 19 .61
Walter 8orntrager. 60.778 98.35 Over Votes 2
WRITE -IN. l, 021 1. 65 Under Votes 1.580
Over Votes 5
Under Votes 100.757
STATE MEASURE 77
Vote for 1
Upper Willamette Soil &Water Director At-Large Pos. 2 Yes . 96.252 62.54
Vote for 1 No·. 57.659 37.46
Timothy D Hovet 29.732 53.97 Over Votes 25
Don Hegstad. 24.177 43.88 Under Votes 19,308
WRITE-IN . 1.183 2.15
Over Votes 59
Under Votes 107.410
Exhibit 1
Page 6 of 8
General Election
November 6, 2012
STATE MEASURE 78 STATE MEASURE 85

Yes 112 .834 73.65 Yes 102,980 64.68
No. 40,378 26.35 No. 56.229 35.32
Under Votes 20,009 Under Votes 14,002
STATE MEASURE 79 20-200 LANE COUNTY

Vote for 1 Housekeeping Amendments to Lane County Charter
Yes 83.500 53.30 Vote for 1
No. 73,160 46.70 Yes 100.562 75.33
Over Votes 83 No. 32.932 24.67
Under Votes 39.714
STATE MEASURE 80
Vote for 1 20 -201 LANE COUNTY
Yes 84,598 51.03 Repeal Section 8 of Lane County Charter
No. 81.170 48.97 Vote for 1
Over Votes 35 Yes 80,631 66.32
Under Votes 7 ,441 No. 40,954 33.68
Over Votes 47
Under Votes 51.612
STATE MEASURE 81
Vote for 1
Yes 50 .770 32.71 20-202 LANE COUNTY
No . 104 .426 67.29 Repeal Sections 31-32 Amend Section 11 of Charter
Under Votes 17. 975 Yes 91.874 74.59
No. 31.295 25.41
Over Votes 21
STATE MEASURE 82 Under Votes 50 .054
Vote for 1
Yes 41.598 25.67
No. 120,431 74 .33 20-197 CITY OF EUGENE
Over Votes 41 Bonds to Fix Streets. Fund Bicycle &Pedestrian Projects
Under Votes ll, 174 Vote for 1
Yes 45,473 - 64.41
No. 25 .126 35.59
STATE MEASURE 83 Over Votes 21
Yes 42.609 26 .46
No. 118.437 73.54
Over Votes 37 20 -198 CITY OF EUGENE
Under Votes 12.161 ' Advisory Question Const Rights Campaign Spendi ng
Vote for 1
Yes 46.409 73.56
STATE MEASURE 84 No. 16.684 26.44
Vote for 1 Over Votes 13
Yes 64 .126 40.04 Under Votes 15.784
No. 96,012 59.96
Over Votes 85
Under Votes 13.021
Exhibit 1
Page 7 of 8
General Election
November 6. 2012
Run Date:ll/21/12 11 :19 AM Report EL45 Page 008
20-206 CITY OF OAKRIDGE 20-203 UPPER MCKENZIE RFPD

Charter Amendment Creating Council Term Limits Five-year local option tax for EMS operating funds
Yes . 849 70.87 Yes . 328 72.41
No . . 349 29.13 No . 125 27.59
20· 207 CITY OF OAKRIDGE 20 -204 FERN RIDGE LIBRARY DISTRICT

Remove Prohibition on Influence of Admi ni str ator Five-Year Local Option Levy for General Operations
Yes . . 675 57.59 Yes . 3.933 70.07
No. 497 42.41 No . 1.680 29.93
20-208 CITY OF OAKRIDGE 20-199 WILLAMALANE PARK &RECREATION DISTRICT

Charter Amendment to Requi re Bond for Ci t y Recorder Bonds to improve parks . trail s; protect water. wildlife
Yes . 806 70.09 Yes . 12.544 53.16
No. 344 29 .91 No. 11 .052 46.84
Under Votes 130 Under Votes 1.800
20- 195 CITY OF SPRINGFIELD

Levy for Springfield Jail Operations Police Services
Vote for 1
Yes . 11 . 771 54. 77
No. 9.719 45.23
Over Votes 1
Under Votes 1.505
20-209 BETHEL SCHOOL DISTRICT #52

Bonds to repair. update. replace facilities
Vote for 1
Yes . 11.443 72.65
No. . 4.307 27 .35
Over Votes 0
Under Votes 1.117
20-205 SOUTH LANE COUNTY FIRE &RESCUE DISTRICT

Five-Year Local Option Tax for General Operations
Vote for 1
Yes . 6,207 55.58
No . 4.961 44.42
Over Votes 4
Under Votes 882
Exhibit 1
Page 8 of 8
Statement of Votes Cast by Geography Page: 1
Lane County, November 8, 2016 General Election 2016-11-23
All Precincts, All Districts, All Contests 15:49:35
Official Final Results
Choice Votes Vote %
All Precincts
United States President and Vice President (Vote for 1)
195019 ballots (59 over voted, 3010 blank voted)
Trump/Pence 67141 34.98%
Clinton/Kaine 102753 53.53%
Stein/Baraka 6302 3.28%
Johnson/Weld 8476 4.42%
Write-in 7278 3.79%
Total 191950 100.00%
US Senator (Vote for 1)

Steven C Reynolds 5540 2.96%
Ron Wyden 110836 59.18%
Mark Callahan 56716 30.28%
Eric Navickas 5670 3.03%
Jim Lindsay 2317 1.24%
Shanti S Lewallen 6013 3.21%
Write-in 204 0.11%
Total 187296 100.00%
US Representative, 4th District (Vote for 1)

Peter A DeFazio 119691 63.62%
Art Robinson 59409 31.58%
Mike Beilstein 5940 3.16%
Gil Guthrie 2853 1.52%
Write-in 234 0.12%
Total 188127 100.00%
Governor (Vote for 1)

James Foster 4660 2.50%
Kate Brown 103226 55.30%
Cliff Thomason 4520 2.42%
Aaron Donald Auer 1705 0.91%
Bud Pierce 72208 38.69%
Write-in 332 0.18%
Total 186651 100.00%
Secretary of State (Vote for 1)

Sharon L Durbin 4680 2.59%
Dennis Richardson 75418 41.71%
Paul Damian Wells 5579 3.09%
Brad Avakian 88458 48.92%
Alan Zundel 5145 2.85%
Michael Marsh 1272 0.70%
Write-in 264 0.15%
Total 180816 100.00%
State Treasurer (Vote for 1)

Chris Henry 10288 5.86%
Tobias Read 85024 48.42%
Jeff Gudman 67552 38.47%
Chris Telfer 12455 7.09%
Write-in 292 0.17%
Total 175611 100.00%
Exhibit 2
Page 1 of 13
Choice Votes Vote %
Attorney General (Vote for 1)
Lars D H Hedbor 5878 3.34%
Ellen Rosenblum 104159 59.15%
Daniel Zene Crowe 65674 37.29%
Write-in 391 0.22%
Total 176102 100.00%
State Senator, 5th District (Vote for 1)

Arnie Roblan 5271 49.91%
Dick Anderson 4904 46.43%
Dan Souza 375 3.55%
Write-in 12 0.11%
Total 10562 100.00%
State Representative, 7th District (Vote for 1)

Cedric Hayden 8963 59.96%
Fergus Mclean 1862 12.46%
Vincent T Portulano 4072 27.24%
Write-in 52 0.35%
Total 14949 100.00%

Paul R Holvey 24300 69.31%
Mary M Tucker 9244 26.37%
Martha Sherwood 1434 4.09%
Write-in 80 0.23%
Total 35058 100.00%

Guy Rosinbaum 435 4.18%
Teri Grier 4679 44.99%
Caddy McKeown 5269 50.67%
Write-in 16 0.15%
Total 10399 100.00%

Phil Barnhart 15303 60.11%
Joe Potwora 10101 39.68%
Write-in 55 0.22%
Total 25459 100.00%

Robert Schwartz 9742 37.36%
John Lively 16237 62.27%
Write-in 96 0.37%
Total 26075 100.00%

C Tsekouras 1052 3.22%
Laura D Cooper 9879 30.26%
Nancy Nathanson 21648 66.30%
Write-in 71 0.22%
Exhibit 2
Page 2 of 13
Choice Votes Vote %
Total 32650 100.00%

Julie Fahey 16292 51.85%
Kathy Lamberg 15062 47.94%
Write-in 67 0.21%
Total 31421 100.00%
Judge of the Supreme Court, Position 6 (Vote for 1)

Lynn R Nakamoto 100110 97.91%
Write-in 2134 2.09%
Total 102244 100.00%
Judge of the Court of Appeals, Position 5 (Vote for 1)

Scott Shorr 98024 98.08%
Write-in 1914 1.92%
Total 99938 100.00%

Roger J DeHoog 94433 98.17%
Write-in 1761 1.83%
Total 96194 100.00%
Judge of the Circuit Court, 2nd District, Position 13 (Vote for 1)

Karrie McIntyre 94957 98.29%
Write-in 1654 1.71%
Total 96611 100.00%
Sheriff (Vote for 1)

Byron M Trapp 102918 97.83%
Write-in 2286 2.17%
Total 105204 100.00%
South Commissioner Position 3 (Vote for 1)

Pete Sorenson 22541 98.06%
Write-in 447 1.94%
Total 22988 100.00%
North Commissioner Position 4 (Vote for 1)

Pat Farr 20955 97.34%
Write-in 572 2.66%
Total 21527 100.00%
Justice of the Peace (Vote for 1)

Woody Woodbury 29378 48.71%
Rick Brissenden 30292 50.23%
Write-in 641 1.06%
Total 60311 100.00%
Exhibit 2
Page 3 of 13
Choice Votes Vote %
Coburg Mayor (Vote for 1)
Ray Smith 457 90.67%
Write-in 47 9.33%
Total 504 100.00%
Coburg Councilor (Vote for 3)

704 ballots (0 over voted, 964 undervotes)
Nancy Bell 377 32.84%
Patti Gianone 351 30.57%
Sharyl Abbaspour 368 32.06%
Write-in 34 2.96%
Write-in 10 0.87%
Write-in 8 0.70%
Total 1148 100.00%
Cottage Grove Mayor (Vote for 1)

Mike Fleck 1111 31.53%
Jake Boone 1124 31.90%
Jeff Gowing 1242 35.24%
Write-in 47 1.33%
Total 3524 100.00%
Cottage Grove Councilor Ward 2 (Vote for 1)

Rodney Cimburke 322 11.62%
Bob Ehler 1447 52.22%
Merlyn Adams 578 20.86%
Henry Lancaster 387 13.97%
Write-in 37 1.34%
Total 2771 100.00%
Cottage Grove Councilor Ward 4 (Vote for 1)

Amy K Slay 2184 97.28%
Write-in 61 2.72%
Total 2245 100.00%
Cottage Grove Councilor At-Large (Vote for 1)

Ivan DelSol 1316 45.01%
Kenneth M Roberts 1575 53.86%
Write-in 33 1.13%
Total 2924 100.00%
Creswell Mayor (Vote for 1)

David E Stram 1659 94.26%
Write-in 101 5.74%
Total 1760 100.00%
Creswell Councilor (Vote for 3)

Amy Knudsen 1337 50.11%
Whyat S Ocumpaugh 966 36.21%
Write-in 314 11.77%
Write-in 39 1.46%
Write-in 12 0.45%
Total 2668 100.00%
Exhibit 2
Page 4 of 13
Choice Votes Vote %
Dunes City Mayor (Vote for 1)
Rebecca Ruede 640 93.16%
Write-in 47 6.84%
Total 687 100.00%
Dunes City Councilor (Vote for 3)

Tom Mallen 510 73.07%
Write-in 117 16.76%
Write-in 52 7.45%
Write-in 19 2.72%
Total 698 100.00%
Eugene Mayor (Vote for 1)

Lucy Vinis 50168 93.01%
Write-in 3772 6.99%
Total 53940 100.00%
Eugene Councilor Ward 1 (Vote for 1)

Joshua Skov 4850 49.02%
Emily Semple 4990 50.43%
Write-in 54 0.55%
Total 9894 100.00%

Betty L Taylor 6536 92.89%
Write-in 500 7.11%
Total 7036 100.00%

Claire Syrett 4605 96.70%
Write-in 157 3.30%
Total 4762 100.00%

Chris Pryor 5141 97.52%
Write-in 131 2.48%
Total 5272 100.00%
Florence Mayor (Vote for 1)

Joe Henry 3532 96.58%
Write-in 125 3.42%
Total 3657 100.00%
Florence Councilor (Vote for 2)

Joshua Greene 2862 50.87%
Ron Preisler 2692 47.85%
Write-in 61 1.08%
Write-in 11 0.20%
Total 5626 100.00%
Exhibit 2
Page 5 of 13
Choice Votes Vote %
Junction City Mayor (Vote for 1)
Mark Crenshaw 1583 72.55%
Andrew Nuckolls 548 25.11%
Write-in 51 2.34%
Total 2182 100.00%
Junction City Councilor (Vote for 4)

Bill DiMarco 1284 19.68%
John P Gambee 1270 19.47%
Jason Thiesfeld 1210 18.55%
Robert Stott 1284 19.68%
Karen Leach 1332 20.42%
Write-in 84 1.29%
Write-in 28 0.43%
Write-in 18 0.28%
Write-in 13 0.20%
Total 6523 100.00%
Lowell Councilor Position 2 (Vote for 1)

Patricia Jo Angelini 304 95.30%
Write-in 15 4.70%
Total 319 100.00%

Jim Burford 256 55.41%
Jerry Lee Valencia 205 44.37%
Write-in 1 0.22%
Total 462 100.00%

Gail Harris 334 73.57%
Brett C Manfrede 119 26.21%
Write-in 1 0.22%
Total 454 100.00%
Oakridge Councilor (Vote for 3)

Mary K Holston 603 23.87%
Paul A Forcum 513 20.31%
Stanley M Barenboim 459 18.17%
Barry C Taylor 818 32.38%
Write-in 108 4.28%
Write-in 19 0.75%
Write-in 6 0.24%
Total 2526 100.00%
Oakridge Councilor 2 Year Term (Vote for 1)

Joshua McMillin 706 87.70%
Write-in 99 12.30%
Total 805 100.00%
Springfield Councilor Ward 3 (Vote for 1)

Sean R Dunn 8763 47.80%
Sheri Moore 9416 51.36%
Exhibit 2
Page 6 of 13
Choice Votes Vote %
Write-in 154 0.84%
Total 18333 100.00%
Veneta Mayor (Vote for 1)

Sandra H Larson 1338 93.11%
Write-in 99 6.89%
Total 1437 100.00%
Veneta Councilor (Vote for 2)

Thomas G Laing 1299 88.61%
Write-in 155 10.57%
Write-in 12 0.82%
Total 1466 100.00%
Westfir Mayor (Vote for 1)

Matt Meske 101 95.28%
Write-in 5 4.72%
Total 106 100.00%
Westfir Councilor (Vote for 2)

Nicole Davis 84 47.46%
Dawn Hendrix 85 48.02%
Write-in 5 2.82%
Write-in 3 1.69%
Total 177 100.00%
EWEB Board Member Wards 1 & 8 (Vote for 1)

Steve Mital 10628 97.79%
Write-in 240 2.21%
Total 10868 100.00%

Dick Helgeson 10981 98.03%
Write-in 221 1.97%
Total 11202 100.00%

Sonya Carlson 9773 97.72%
Write-in 228 2.28%
Total 10001 100.00%
SUB Board Member Position 1 (Vote for 1)

David Willis 14201 98.43%
Write-in 226 1.57%
Total 14427 100.00%

John DeWenter 13891 98.55%
Write-in 205 1.45%
Total 14096 100.00%
Exhibit 2
Page 7 of 13
Choice Votes Vote %
Pat Riggs-Henson 13900 98.41%
Write-in 225 1.59%
Total 14125 100.00%
Linn S&W Director, Zone 2 (Vote for 1)

Liz VanLeeuwen 655 98.50%
Write-in 10 1.50%
Total 665 100.00%

Mark E Mellbye 626 98.74%
Write-in 8 1.26%
Total 634 100.00%

Aaron J Schumacher 619 98.72%
Write-in 8 1.28%
Total 627 100.00%
Linn S&W Director, At Large 1 (Vote for 1)

Janice M Horner 629 98.74%
Write-in 8 1.26%
Total 637 100.00%
Siuslaw S&W Director Zone 3 (Vote for 1)

Kevin Carroll 6148 99.21%
Write-in 49 0.79%
Total 6197 100.00%
Siuslaw S&W Director At-Large 1 (Vote for 1)

Richard Duane Huff 6218 99.19%
Write-in 51 0.81%
Total 6269 100.00%
Upper Willamette S&W Director Zone 1 (Vote for 1)

Write-in 9150 100.00%
Total 9150 100.00%

Don Mogstad 79161 98.35%
Write-in 1331 1.65%
Total 80492 100.00%

Ralph Perkins 79324 98.41%
Write-in 1283 1.59%
Total 80607 100.00%
Exhibit 2
Page 8 of 13
Choice Votes Vote %
Upper Willamette S&W Director At-Large 1 (Vote for 1)
Write-in 8468 100.00%
Total 8468 100.00%
Central Lincoln PUD Director Subdivision 3 (Vote for 1)

Curt Abbott 804 99.01%
Write-in 8 0.99%
Total 812 100.00%
Central Lincoln PUD Director Subdivision 4 (Vote for 1)

Judy Matheny 5337 98.94%
Write-in 57 1.06%
Total 5394 100.00%
EPUD Director Subdivision 1 (Vote for 1)

Ron Davis 2221 97.67%
Write-in 53 2.33%
Total 2274 100.00%

Katherine Schacht 1388 39.99%
Brian E Parker 2054 59.18%
Write-in 29 0.84%
Total 3471 100.00%

Jim Weaver 1551 43.86%
Brandon Jordan 1958 55.37%
Write-in 27 0.76%
Total 3536 100.00%
Heceta Water PUD Director Subdivision 3 (Vote for 1)

Wendy Rohner 262 99.24%
Write-in 2 0.76%
Total 264 100.00%
Heceta Water PUD Director Subdivision 4 (Vote for 1)

Vito V Coviello 283 98.95%
Write-in 3 1.05%
Total 286 100.00%
Measure 94 Retirement Age State Judges (Vote for 1)

Yes 69115 38.05%
No 112518 61.95%
Total 181633 100.00%
Measure 95 Public University Equities (Vote for 1)

Yes 121247 68.30%
No 56274 31.70%
Exhibit 2
Page 9 of 13
Choice Votes Vote %
Total 177521 100.00%
Measure 96 Lottery Fund for Veterans (Vote for 1)

Yes 154110 83.25%
No 31010 16.75%
Total 185120 100.00%
Measure 97 Increases Corporate Minimum Tax (Vote for 1)

Yes 89955 47.42%
No 99759 52.58%
Total 189714 100.00%
Measure 98 Career Funding (Vote for 1)

Yes 131584 71.41%
No 52671 28.59%
Total 184255 100.00%
Measure 99 Outdoor School Fund (Vote for 1)

Yes 122858 66.85%
No 60916 33.15%
Total 183774 100.00%
Measure 100 Prohibits Wildlife Parts or Products (Vote for 1)

Yes 133522 73.38%
No 48435 26.62%
Total 181957 100.00%
20-261 Lane County Marijuana Tax (Vote for 1)

Yes 130730 70.05%
No 55881 29.95%
Total 186611 100.00%
20-248 Coburg Marijuana Facilities Prohibition (Vote for 1)

Yes 429 62.08%
No 262 37.92%
Total 691 100.00%
20-250 Coburg Fuel Tax (Vote for 1)

Yes 303 44.49%
No 378 55.51%
Total 681 100.00%
20-245 Cottage Grove Marijuana Tax (Vote for 1)

Yes 2886 68.13%
No 1350 31.87%
Total 4236 100.00%
20-262 Cottage Grove Gas Tax (Vote for 1)

Yes 1133 26.89%
Exhibit 2
Page 10 of 13
Choice Votes Vote %
No 3080 73.11%
Total 4213 100.00%
20-238 Creswell Marijuana Operations Prohibition (Vote for 1)

Yes 1298 52.61%
No 1169 47.39%
Total 2467 100.00%
20-255 Creswell Marijuana Tax (Vote for 1)

Yes 1885 77.16%
No 558 22.84%
Total 2443 100.00%
20-257 Creswell Police Services Levy (Vote for 1)

Yes 897 38.09%
No 1458 61.91%
Total 2355 100.00%
20-249 Dunes City Marijuana Tax (Vote for 1)

Yes 624 66.81%
No 310 33.19%
Total 934 100.00%
20-253 Eugene Marijuana Tax (Vote for 1)

Yes 60414 70.69%
No 25045 29.31%
Total 85459 100.00%
20-251 Florence Marijuana Tax (Vote for 1)

Yes 3528 72.40%
No 1345 27.60%
Total 4873 100.00%
20-256 Junction City Marijuana Facilities Prohibition (Vote for 1)

Yes 1532 52.83%
No 1368 47.17%
Total 2900 100.00%
20-263 Lowell Charter Amendment (Vote for 1)

Yes 415 83.84%
No 80 16.16%
Total 495 100.00%
20-265 Oakridge Marijuana Tax (Vote for 1)

Yes 895 67.60%
No 429 32.40%
Total 1324 100.00%
Exhibit 2
Page 11 of 13
Choice Votes Vote %
20-252 Springfield Fuel Tax (Vote for 1)
Yes 7932 30.81%
No 17813 69.19%
Total 25745 100.00%
20-254 Springfield Marijuana Tax (Vote for 1)

Yes 16917 65.76%
No 8809 34.24%
Total 25726 100.00%
20-246 Veneta Marijuana Tax (Vote for 1)

Yes 1437 64.18%
No 802 35.82%
Total 2239 100.00%
20-247 Westfir Marijuana Tax (Vote for 1)

Yes 92 71.88%
No 36 28.12%
Total 128 100.00%
20-260 Blachly School District Bonds (Vote for 1)

Yes 157 46.45%
No 181 53.55%
Total 338 100.00%
20-264 Crow-Applegate-Lorane School Bond (Vote for 1)

Yes 726 56.11%
No 568 43.89%
Total 1294 100.00%
2-101 Monroe School Bonds (Vote for 1)

Yes 38 53.52%
No 33 46.48%
Total 71 100.00%
20-268 Lane County Fire #1 Merger (Vote for 1)

Yes 7642 85.02%
No 1347 14.98%
Total 8989 100.00%
20-267 Lane Rural Fire/Rescue Merger (Vote for 1)

Yes 3055 84.88%
No 544 15.12%
Total 3599 100.00%
20-259 Heceta Water Dissolution (Vote for 1)

Yes 1474 76.85%
No 444 23.15%
Exhibit 2
Page 12 of 13
Choice Votes Vote %
Total 1918 100.00%
20-258 Fern Ridge Library Levy (Vote for 1)

Yes 2309 35.92%
No 4120 64.08%
Total 6429 100.00%
20-266 Western Lane Ambulance Levy Renewal (Vote for 1)

Yes 7335 77.85%
No 2087 22.15%
Total 9422 100.00%
Exhibit 2
Page 13 of 13
Statement of Votes Cast by Geography Page: 1 of 9
Lane County Primary Election, May 19, 2020
All Precincts, All Districts, All ScanStations, All Contests, All Boxes
Total Ballots Cast: 121382
Choice Votes Vote %
All Precincts
President (DEM) (Vote for 1)
66003 ballots (11 over voted ballots, 11 overvotes, 1420 undervotes)
Joseph R Biden 41861 64.83%
Bernie Sanders 14822 22.95%
Elizabeth Warren 5623 8.71%
Tulsi Gabbard 1167 1.81%
Write-in 1099 1.70%
Total 64572 100.00%
Overvotes 11
Undervotes 1420
President (REP) (Vote for 1)

Donald J Trump 27866 92.68%
Write-in 2202 7.32%
Total 30068 100.00%
Overvotes 1
Undervotes 3142
US Senator (DEM) (Vote for 1)

Jeff Merkley 58338 99.00%
Write-in 587 1.00%
Total 58925 100.00%
Overvotes 0
Undervotes 7079
US Senator (REP) (Vote for 1)

Paul J Romero Jr 8625 30.81%
Robert Schwartz 3484 12.45%
Jo Rae Perkins 13484 48.17%
John Verbeek 2049 7.32%
Write-in 352 1.26%
Total 27994 100.00%
Overvotes 11
Undervotes 5206
US Representative, 4th District (DEM) (Vote for 1)

Peter DeFazio 54917 85.51%
Doyle Elizabeth Canning 8979 13.98%
Write-in 328 0.51%
Total 64224 100.00%
Overvotes 4
Undervotes 1776
US Representative, 4th District (REP) (Vote for 1)

Alek Skarlatos 24102 85.34%
Nelson Ijih 3786 13.41%
Write-in 355 1.26%
Total 28243 100.00%
Overvotes 2
Undervotes 4966
Secretary of State (DEM) (Vote for 1)

Mark D Hass 16679 28.78%
Exhibit 3
Page 1 of 9
Choice Votes Vote %
Jamie McLeod-Skinner 13709 23.65%
Shemia Fagan 27199 46.93%
Write-in 375 0.65%
Total 57962 100.00%
Overvotes 1
Undervotes 7902
Secretary of State (REP) (Vote for 1)

Kim Thatcher 23667 84.72%
Dave W Stauffer 3977 14.24%
Write-in 292 1.05%
Total 27936 100.00%
Overvotes 1
Undervotes 5266
State Treasurer (DEM) (Vote for 1)

Tobias Read 45675 98.89%
Write-in 513 1.11%
Total 46188 100.00%
Overvotes 1
Undervotes 19676
State Treasurer (REP) (Vote for 1)

Jeff Gudman 22856 98.77%
Write-in 284 1.23%
Total 23140 100.00%
Overvotes 1
Undervotes 10062
Attorney General (DEM) (Vote for 1)

Ellen Rosenblum 48078 99.15%
Write-in 411 0.85%
Total 48489 100.00%
Overvotes 0
Undervotes 17376
Attorney General (REP) (Vote for 1)

Michael Cross 20964 96.64%
Write-in 729 3.36%
Total 21693 100.00%
Overvotes 1
Undervotes 11509
State Senator, 5th District (DEM) (Vote for 1)

Melissa T Cribbins 2574 99.15%
Write-in 22 0.85%
Total 2596 100.00%
Overvotes 0
Undervotes 951
State Senator, 5th District (REP) (Vote for 1)

Dick Anderson 2192 99.01%
Write-in 22 0.99%
Exhibit 3
Page 2 of 9
Choice Votes Vote %
Total 2214 100.00%
Overvotes 1
Undervotes 811
State Representative, 7th District (DEM) (Vote for 1)

Jerry M Samaniego 2760 98.22%
Write-in 50 1.78%
Total 2810 100.00%
Overvotes 0
Undervotes 1548
State Representative, 7th District (REP) (Vote for 1)

Cedric Hayden 3146 98.56%
Write-in 46 1.44%
Total 3192 100.00%
Overvotes 0
Undervotes 884

Joseph Reilly 1641 12.34%
Paul R Holvey 11588 87.13%
Write-in 71 0.53%
Total 13300 100.00%
Overvotes 1
Undervotes 3463

Timothy W Aldal 3133 97.94%
Write-in 66 2.06%
Total 3199 100.00%
Overvotes 0
Undervotes 1929

Cal Mukumoto 2016 72.10%
Mark Daily 737 26.36%
Write-in 43 1.54%
Total 2796 100.00%
Overvotes 0
Undervotes 751

Boomer Wright 2596 99.20%
Write-in 21 0.80%
Total 2617 100.00%
Overvotes 0
Undervotes 409

Marty Wilde 7017 99.10%
Write-in 64 0.90%
Exhibit 3
Page 3 of 9
Choice Votes Vote %
Total 7081 100.00%
Overvotes 0
Undervotes 2129

Katie Boshart Glaser 1905 51.40%
Nicole De Graff 1768 47.71%
Write-in 33 0.89%
Total 3706 100.00%
Overvotes 1
Undervotes 847

John Lively 6409 98.65%
Write-in 88 1.35%
Total 6497 100.00%
Overvotes 0
Undervotes 1838

Ruth E Linoz 3393 98.43%
Write-in 54 1.57%
Total 3447 100.00%
Overvotes 0
Undervotes 1616

Nancy Nathanson 10444 99.34%
Write-in 69 0.66%
Total 10513 100.00%
Overvotes 0
Undervotes 3162

David J Smith 3113 98.33%
Write-in 53 1.67%
Total 3166 100.00%
Overvotes 0
Undervotes 2089

Julie Fahey 7745 98.67%
Write-in 104 1.33%
Total 7849 100.00%
Overvotes 0
Undervotes 2127

Alison Rhoads 1932 38.36%
Rich Cunningham 3043 60.41%
Write-in 62 1.23%
Exhibit 3
Page 4 of 9
Choice Votes Vote %
Total 5037 100.00%
Overvotes 2
Undervotes 1062

Thomas A Balmer 65580 71.56%
Van Pounds 25696 28.04%
Write-in 368 0.40%
Total 91644 100.00%
Overvotes 10
Undervotes 29581

Martha Walters 72019 98.61%
Write-in 1016 1.39%
Total 73035 100.00%
Overvotes 1
Undervotes 48199

Joel DeVore 52311 59.07%
Kyle L Krohn 35900 40.54%
Write-in 343 0.39%
Total 88554 100.00%
Overvotes 15
Undervotes 32666

Josephine H Mooney 69348 98.40%
Write-in 1125 1.60%
Total 70473 100.00%
Overvotes 2
Undervotes 50760

Erin C Lagesen 67852 98.74%
Write-in 868 1.26%
Total 68720 100.00%
Overvotes 0
Undervotes 52515

Doug Tookey 66869 98.64%
Write-in 920 1.36%
Total 67789 100.00%
Overvotes 0
Undervotes 53446

Charles D Carlson 65073 98.48%
Write-in 1003 1.52%
Exhibit 3
Page 5 of 9
Choice Votes Vote %
Total 66076 100.00%
Overvotes 0
Undervotes 55159

Bradley A Cascagnette 65025 98.60%
Write-in 925 1.40%
Total 65950 100.00%
Overvotes 0
Undervotes 55285

Charles M Zennache' 65830 98.61%
Write-in 927 1.39%
Total 66757 100.00%
Overvotes 0
Undervotes 54478

Clara L Rigmaiden 65499 98.61%
Write-in 923 1.39%
Total 66422 100.00%
Overvotes 0
Undervotes 54813
District Attorney, Lane County (Vote for 1)

Patricia W Perlow 69903 68.70%
James Cleavenger 31497 30.95%
Write-in 351 0.34%
Total 101751 100.00%
Overvotes 11
Undervotes 19473
South Commissioner Position 3 (Vote for 1)

Laurie Trieger 8907 43.13%
Sandra Bishop 2551 12.35%
Matt Moore 1592 7.71%
Joel Iboa 7531 36.47%
Write-in 71 0.34%
Total 20652 100.00%
Overvotes 28
Undervotes 4352
North Commissioner Position 4 (Vote for 1)

Andrew Ross 8018 39.37%
Pat Farr 12256 60.17%
Write-in 94 0.46%
Total 20368 100.00%
Overvotes 1
Undervotes 4447
City of Eugene Mayor (Vote for 1)

Ben Ricker 1224 2.55%
Thomas Hiura 4952 10.30%
Exhibit 3
Page 6 of 9
Choice Votes Vote %
Stacey Westover 2936 6.11%
Robert Patterson 1552 3.23%
Zondie Zinke 2456 5.11%
Matthew Yook 1490 3.10%
Lucy Vinis 32193 66.98%
Write-in 1258 2.62%
Total 48061 100.00%
Overvotes 11
Undervotes 7029
City of Eugene Councilor Ward 1 (Vote for 1)

Tim Morris 1109 16.32%
Emily Semple 2637 38.81%
Daniel Liev Williams 92 1.35%
Sean Dwyer 130 1.91%
Candice A King 526 7.74%
Eliza Kashinsky 2261 33.28%
Write-in 39 0.57%
Total 6794 100.00%
Overvotes 1
Undervotes 1023

Kate Davidson 3257 38.35%
Matthew K Keating 5179 60.99%
Write-in 56 0.66%
Total 8492 100.00%
Overvotes 1
Undervotes 1211

Douglas Barr 1163 25.50%
Claire Syrett 2704 59.29%
Cliff Gray 639 14.01%
Write-in 55 1.21%
Total 4561 100.00%
Overvotes 1
Undervotes 1543

Ryan Moore 2252 42.43%
Randy Groves 3034 57.16%
Write-in 22 0.41%
Total 5308 100.00%
Overvotes 1
Undervotes 1045
City of Springfield Mayor (Vote for 1)

Christine Lundberg 8235 57.85%
Mike Eyster 5952 41.81%
Write-in 48 0.34%
Total 14235 100.00%
Overvotes 3
Undervotes 1204
Exhibit 3
Page 7 of 9
Choice Votes Vote %
City of Springfield Councilor Ward 3 (Vote for 1)
Johanis Tadeo 4181 34.58%
Kori Rodley 4645 38.42%
Kris McAlister 3175 26.26%
Write-in 89 0.74%
Total 12090 100.00%
Overvotes 1
Undervotes 3351

Leonard Stoehr 8992 98.41%
Write-in 145 1.59%
Total 9137 100.00%
Overvotes 0
Undervotes 6305

Joe Pishioneri 8664 68.08%
Gregg G Ybarra 3991 31.36%
Write-in 72 0.57%
Total 12727 100.00%
Overvotes 0
Undervotes 2715

Matt McRae 8378 98.70%
Write-in 110 1.30%
Total 8488 100.00%
Overvotes 0
Undervotes 5684

John Barofsky 6393 65.41%
Vince McClellan 3308 33.84%
Write-in 73 0.75%
Total 9774 100.00%
Overvotes 8
Undervotes 4432

Sonya Carlson 6939 98.34%
Write-in 117 1.66%
Total 7056 100.00%
Overvotes 0
Undervotes 4583
Measure 20-305 City of Creswell Charter Amendment (Vote for 1)

Yes 1183 81.93%
No 261 18.07%
Total 1444 100.00%
Overvotes 1
Undervotes 78
Exhibit 3
Page 8 of 9
Choice Votes Vote %
Measure 20-306 Lane Community College Bonds (Vote for 1)
Yes 63893 58.49%
No 45344 41.51%
Total 109237 100.00%
Overvotes 5
Undervotes 11926
Exhibit 3
Page 9 of 9
MovingAhead Outreach Summary
Analysis and Summary of Feedback from Summer and Fall 2018 Outreach Activities
Prepared For
City of Eugene
Lane Transit District
Prepared By
JLA Public Involvement
December 2018
Exhibit 4
Page 1 of 67
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 2
Summary of Activities ................................................................................................................................... 3
Open House Feedback .................................................................................................................................. 6
Listening Session Feedback ......................................................................................................................... 17
General Project Comments ......................................................................................................................... 18
Media Engagement……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….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
MovingAhead 2018 Outreach Summary 1

Exhibit 4
Page 2 of 67
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.

Exhibit 4
Page 3 of 67
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.
Exhibit 4
Page 4 of 67
• 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 Participants explore content at the 30th Avenue to LCC open
conversations with 21 people in response to house at the Downtown Eugene Public Library.
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
Exhibit 4
Page 5 of 67
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.
Exhibit 4
Page 6 of 67
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. Participants at a Spanish-language focus group discuss
their thoughts on the corridor alternatives.
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

th
Sept. 24 Eugene Public Library 30 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
Exhibit 4
Page 7 of 67
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.”

Exhibit 4
Page 8 of 67
Figure 7
Exhibit 4
Page 9 of 67
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.
Exhibit 4
Page 10 of 67
Figure 1
Exhibit 4
Page 11 of 67
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.”

Exhibit 4
Page 12 of 67
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
Exhibit 4
Page 13 of 67
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
Exhibit 4
Page 14 of 67
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.
Exhibit 4
Page 15 of 67
Figure 5
Exhibit 4
Page 16 of 67
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.
Participants view information displays and talk with staff at the River Road Corridor Open House at
Kelly Middle School on Sept. 25, 2018.

Exhibit 4
Page 17 of 67
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. Spanish language listening session
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).

Exhibit 4
Page 18 of 67
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 30
Committee
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

Exhibit 4
Page 19 of 67
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.
Media Engagement
The project team’s outreach generated several and stories about the project. There were at least six
articles from four different news sources including TV, newspaper, and radio.
• Hill, Christian. “Public comment opens for 10-year transit road map in Eugene-Springfield.” The
Register-Guard [Eugene]. September 11, 2018.
https://www.registerguard.com/news/20180911/public-comment-opens-for-10-year-transit-
road-map-in-eugene-springfield
• Rothman, Stephanie. “LTD prepares for influx of people in Eugene by hosting open houses.”
KMTR 16 [Eugene]. September 21, 2018. https://nbc16.com/news/local/ltd-prepares-for-influx-
of-people-in-eugene-by-hosting-open-houses
• Glucklich, Elon. “Open houses to take on future of Eugene streets.” The Register-Guard
[Eugene]. September 22, 2018. https://www.registerguard.com/news/20180922/open-houses-
to-take-on-future-of-eugene-streets
• Christensen, Kelsey. “LTD prepares for growth of Eugene with MovingAhead Project.” KMTR 16
[Eugene]. September 24, 2018. https://nbc16.com/news/local/ltd-prepares-for-growth-of-
eugene-with-movingahead-project
• Smukler, Jillian. “MovingAhead Project Asks Community for Feedback.” KEZI 9 [Eugene].
September 24, 2018. https://www.kezi.com/content/news/MovingAhead-Project-asks-for-
feedback-494141401.html
• Kellner, Angela. “Input Wanted for Improving Eugene’s 5 Busiest Roads.” 89.7 KLCC [Eugene].
September 28, 2018. http://www.klcc.org/post/input-wanted-improving-eugenes-5-busiest-
roads
Exhibit 4
Page 20 of 67
Appendix 1: Communication Materials
MovingAhead website:

Exhibit 4
Page 21 of 67
E-news, sent June 25, 2018:
Exhibit 4
Page 22 of 67
Poster
Postcard
Exhibit 4
Page 23 of 67
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.
29.6%
28.1% 27.8%
% of participants
20.4%
18.5%
16.8%
13.3% 13.3%
11.1%
5.1% 5.6% 5.6%
1.0%1.9% 2.0%
0.0%
17 and 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75+
under
Online In-Person

Exhibit 4
Page 24 of 67
Sex
For both the online and in-person open houses, men were a slightly higher percentage of participants.
Online In-Person
3.2%
4.3%
49.3% 46.4% 52.4% 44.4%
Other Female Male Other Female Male
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.
61.7%
% of participants
44.4%
36.1%
6.9% 2.8% 6.2% 13.2%

2.8% 2.8%
1.6% 1.6% 2.5% 2.5% 3.3% 3.3% 4.1% 4.2%
Online In-Person
Exhibit 4
Page 25 of 67
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.
32.3% 32.6%
% of participants
21.0%
18.6%
14.0%14.0%
10.8%
9.3%
7.0% 5.9%7.0% 7.0%
4.7% 2.3% 4.8% 4.7%
2.7% 1.6%
Less than $10,000 $15,000 $25,000 $35,000 $45,000 $55,000 $75,000 to $100,000
$10,000 to to to to to to $99,999 or more
$14,999 $24,999 $34,999 $44,999 $54,999 $74,999
Online In-Person
Household Size
For both the online and in-person open houses, the most common household size was two people.
51.7%
42.6%
% of participants
23.3%
20.1%
17.2% 15.0%13.2%
8.3%
5.4%
0.5% 1.7% 0.5% 0.5%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Online In-Person
Exhibit 4
Page 26 of 67
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.
Online African-
American/Black
3.3%
Asian 3.3%
Caucasian/
White Other 15.4% Hispanic
84.6% 4.2%
Other 4.7%
In-Person
African-
American/Black
Caucasian/ 4.8%
Other 6.3%
White 93.7%
Other 1.6%
Exhibit 4
Page 27 of 67
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

Exhibit 4
Page 28 of 67
• 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
Exhibit 4
Page 29 of 67
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
Exhibit 4
Page 30 of 67
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
Exhibit 4
Page 31 of 67
• 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
Exhibit 4
Page 32 of 67
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.
Exhibit 4
Page 33 of 67
• 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.
Exhibit 4
Page 34 of 67
• 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
Exhibit 4
Page 35 of 67
""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
Exhibit 4
Page 36 of 67
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
Exhibit 4
Page 37 of 67
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.
Exhibit 4
Page 38 of 67
• 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
Exhibit 4
Page 39 of 67
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!
Exhibit 4
Page 40 of 67
• 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.
Exhibit 4
Page 41 of 67
• 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
Exhibit 4
Page 42 of 67
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.
Exhibit 4
Page 43 of 67
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
Exhibit 4
Page 44 of 67
• 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.
• 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
• Existing Jobs and population Served – this criteria was noted as important, but no specific comments
• 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
Exhibit 4
Page 45 of 67
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.
• 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.
• 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
Exhibit 4
Page 46 of 67
• 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
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.
• 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.
Exhibit 4
Page 47 of 67
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)
Exhibit 4
Page 48 of 67
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.

Exhibit 4
Page 49 of 67
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
Exhibit 4
Page 50 of 67
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
Exhibit 4
Page 51 of 67
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 &
Exhibit 4
Page 52 of 67
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
Exhibit 4
Page 53 of 67
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
Exhibit 4
Page 54 of 67
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
Exhibit 4
Page 55 of 67
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):
Exhibit 4
Page 56 of 67
• 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?
Exhibit 4
Page 57 of 67
• 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
Exhibit 4
Page 58 of 67
• 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.
Exhibit 4
Page 59 of 67
• 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
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
Exhibit 4
Page 60 of 67
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.

Exhibit 4
Page 61 of 67
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
onsite 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

Exhibit 4
Page 62 of 67
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,

Exhibit 4
Page 63 of 67
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
Exhibit 4
Page 64 of 67
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

Exhibit 4
Page 65 of 67
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
Exhibit 4
Page 66 of 67
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
Exhibit 4
Page 67 of 67
Comment-Response Report
Community Feedback Summer and Fall 2019
on Preferred Investment Package
Lane Transit District and City of Eugene

MovingAhead Project
Eugene, Lane County, Oregon
May 1, 2021
Introduction 1
Project Background and History ................................................................................................................... 2
Project Overview....................................................................................................................................... 2
Range of Investment Packages ................................................................................................................. 3
Agency Coordination and Public Opportunity to Comment ......................................................................... 5
October 2019 Public Hearing Testimony .................................................................................................. 5
Comments on the Investment Packages....................................................................................................... 6
Comments Summarized by Topic Area ..................................................................................................... 6
Comments on Specific Investment Packages............................................................................................ 7
Comments on Individual Corridors ........................................................................................................... 7
Who Commented on the Range of Investment Packages ........................................................................ 8
Consideration of Public Comments .......................................................................................................... 9
Using the Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 9
Referenced Reports ...................................................................................................................................... 9
Appendix A: Advertisements and Notices Fall 2019................................................................................ 12
Appendix B: October 21, 2019 Open House and Public Hearing Materials ............................................ 27
Appendix C: Comments Received During the Public Hearing Comment Period and Responses to
Comments .......................................................................................................................... 33
Appendix D: Responses to 17 Comment Topic Areas.............................................................................. 39
Appendix E: Original Comment Letters, Forms and Emails..................................................................... 56
Introduction
This report documents the comments received during the summer and fall of 2019 regarding selecting a
preferred package of investments for the MovingAhead Project (Project) proposed by the Lane Transit
Exhibit 5
Page 1 of 290
District (LTD) and the City of Eugene (City) in Eugene, Lane County, Oregon. Additionally, this report
provides responses to the comments received.
This report was originally drafted in March 2020. The distribution of the public comments and this
associated report was delayed because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Alignment and mode alternatives for five corridors analyzed in the Alternatives Analysis (September
2018) (AA) resulted from extensive planning and public involvement. After the publication of the AA,
LTD and the City conducted extensive public involvement in 2018 and 2019, which resulted in a range of
investment packages for the community to consider (see MovingAhead Investment Packages Technical
Memo (December 2018) and MovingAhead Investment Packages Alternatives Supplemental Refinement
Report (May 2019). In spring 2019, LTD and the City conducted additional outreach on the refined
investment packages (see MovingAhead Outreach Summary, May 2019). In summer 2019, based on
community and agency feedback, investment packages were further refined (see MovingAhead Refined
Investment Packages Options for Fall 2019 Public Hearing, October 2019). In fall 2019, LTD and the City
conducted outreach and held a public hearing to aid decision makers in selecting a preferred investment
package for the five corridors. This report documents comments received in summer 2019 while refining
the investment packages and comments received in fall 2019 in response to the outreach and public
hearing for a preferred package of investments.
Project Background and History

MovingAhead began in 2015 as a partnership between the City of Eugene, Lane Transit District (LTD),
regional agencies, and the Eugene-Springﬁeld community. The purpose of the project is to determine
what transportation investments are needed on some of our most important streets.
Project Overview
MovingAhead builds upon transportation and land use plans including Envision Eugene, LTD’s Long-
Range Transit Plan, the Eugene 2035 Transportation System Plan (Eugene 2035 TSP), Eugene’s Vision
Zero Action Plan, Eugene’s Climate Recovery Ordinance, and the Central Lane Metropolitan Planning
Organization Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).
The MovingAhead project has focused on creating active, vibrant places that are safe and accessible,
serve the community, and accommodate future growth. Input from community members has been the
foundation of this process. Beginning with a community-driven process, the project has developed and
analyzed conceptual design alternatives along five corridors: Highway 99, River Road, 30th Ave to LCC,
Coburg Road, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard (Figure 1). The proposed alternatives include No-
Build (do nothing now), Enhanced Corridor, and EmX. Enhanced Corridor, a new concept to the Eugene-
Springfield area, contains a moderate level of investment for people walking, bicycling, using mobility
devices, and riding transit. EmX is a higher level of investment in the community.
Exhibit 5
Page 2 of 290
Figure 1. Project Corridors Overview
Range of Investment Packages

Following the publication of the MovingAhead Alternatives Analysis in September 2018, staff used
feedback from a 30-day public comment period (from September 10 – October 10, 2018) to develop
packages of investments that more comprehensively plan at the system level and simplify the processes
of soliciting feedback from the public and engaging Eugene City Council and LTD’s Board of Directors in
decision making in the future. Simply stated, investment packages are a set of alternatives for each of
the five corridors.
The initial investment packages were refined after a second 30-day comment period (from March 11 –
April 10, 2019). The refined packages were brought to a joint work session of Eugene City Council and
Lane Transit District Board of Directors on July 15, 2019. At that meeting, both City Council and the
Board of Directors voted to hold a public hearing on a range of investment packages that was slightly
modified from the refined investment packages that were discussed at the joint work session (Table 1).
The development of the investment packages and refined investment packages can be found in the
project reports MovingAhead Investment Packages Technical Memo (December 2018), MovingAhead
Investment Packages Alternatives Supplemental Refinement Report (May 2019), and MovingAhead
Refined Investment Package Options for Fall 2019 Public Hearing (October 2019).
Exhibit 5
Page 3 of 290
Table 1. Investment Packages Advanced by City Council and LTD Board of Directors to October 2019 Public
Hearing
Corridor
30th Avenue to MLK, Junior
Investment Package Highway 99 River Road Coburg Road
LCC Boulevard
Enhanced Corridor Enhanced Enhanced Enhanced Enhanced Enhanced
Package Corridor Corridor Corridor Corridor Corridor
Enhanced Enhanced Enhanced Enhanced
Package C EmX
Corridor Corridor Corridor Corridor
Enhanced Enhanced Enhanced
Package D EmX EmX
Corridor Corridor Corridor
Enhanced Enhanced
Package E EmX EmX EmX
Corridor Corridor
Enhanced
EmX Package EmX EmX EmX EmX
Corridor
Packages listed in Table 2 below were presented to the public between May and October 2019 but were
eliminated from further consideration by Eugene City Council and LTD’s Board of Directors and not
forwarded to the October 2019 public hearing. Primary concerns that led to eliminating the four
alternatives from further consideration were similar:
• Overall desire by the public and decision makers to make investments in all five corridors.
• Bike/pedestrian access and safety was the leading factor for highly rating packages over other
packages, ahead of travel time, ridership increase, and both capital and operating costs, leading to
much of the strong support for packages with more EmX options which include many
bike/pedestrian improvements.
• Concern about cost and anticipated lack of ridership in corridors with lower investment.
Table 2. Investment Packages Eliminated from Further Consideration in July 2019

Corridor
30th Avenue to MLK, Junior
LCC Boulevard
Enhanced
Package A EmX No-Build No-Build No-Build
Corridor
Package B EmX No-Build
Modified Package A No-Build No-Build
Enhanced Enhanced
Modified Package B EmX EmX No-Build
Corridor Corridor
Exhibit 5
Page 4 of 290
Agency Coordination and Public Opportunity to Comment
Between May and December 2019, public and agency comments were received via letter, email,
comment forms, and in-person. A summary of project-related events that occurred during this period is
included in Table 3 below.
Table 3. Summary of Project-Related Events, May through December 2019

Date Event Comments Received
May 7, 2019 – Public encouraged through email, website, Written public comments
January 7, 2020 and community communications to review accepted via email and US Postal
and comment on range of investment service
package options
July 15, 2019 Joint Work Session of Eugene City Council Public testimony not taken but
and LTD Board of Directors written public comments
accepted
July 23, 2019 Tabling at Jefferson Westside Neighbors Provided information on
Annual Picnic investment packages and public
hearing to community members
September 9, Presentation to River Road Community Provided information on
2019 Organization investment packages and public
hearing to community members
October 21, 2019 Open House Written and oral public
comments accepted
October 21, 2019 Public Hearing held jointly by Eugene City Public testimony and written
Council and LTD Board of Directors comments accepted
October 2019 Public Hearing Testimony

The public hearing took place on October 21, 2019 at 7:30 PM in Harris Hall, Lane County Public Works
building. Prior to the public hearing, staff held an open house. The open house was available to the
public from 5:00 to 7:00 PM in the lobby outside of Harris Hall. Materials provided at the open house
provided information to visitors about the project, the alternatives considered, and the investment
packages proposed at the public hearing. Staff from the City of Eugene and Lane Transit District were
dispersed to answer questions. Visitors were also provided a sheet offering tips and a sample structure
to aid them in testifying. Public notices and advertisements are included in Appendix A of this report.
Materials used at the open house and public hearing are attached in Appendix B.
Visitors to the open house were invited to provide written comment if they preferred rather than testify
orally at the public hearing. Three written comments were submitted. Additionally, materials provided
by the project team indicated that comments received by November 4, 2019 would be included in the
record. Due to the timing of releasing this report, comments were accepted after the November 4, 2019
deadline, until January 7, 2020, in an effort to include as many comments as were received.
A joint public hearing of the Eugene City Council and the Lane Transit District Board of Directors began
at 7:30 PM. Those who wished to testify were allotted up to three minutes each. A total of 31 individuals
Exhibit 5
Page 5 of 290
provided testimony at the public hearing. The testimony was transcribed and all testimony is included in
Appendix E along with the written comments received.
All comments received between May 13, 2019 and January 7, 2020 are included in Appendix E.
Comments on the Investment Packages

Comments received include letters and emails submitted to LTD or the City of Eugene, comment forms
submitted at public events, and oral testimony given at the October 21, 2019 public hearing held jointly
by the LTD Board of Directors and the Eugene City Council.
Appendix E to this report includes the 120 written letters, comment forms, emails, and oral testimony
received during the summer and fall 2019. The comments did not reveal any material new information
or raise any issues that required new analysis.
Comments Summarized by Topic Area

A total of 120 comments from 92 unique individuals were received between May 2019 and January
2020. Many individuals provided comments on more than one topic. All of the comments generally fell
into 17 topic areas (Table 4). Responses to each of the 17 topic areas were prepared and are provided in
Appendix D. In Table 4 “Response #” refers to the response table in Appendix D.
Table 4. Summary of Comments Received by Topic Area

Percent of
No. of
Response Commenters
Comment Topic Area Comments
# Who Raised
on Topic
Issue
1 General comment neither supporting nor opposing project 6 5%
2 Expression of support for project 48 40%
3 Expression of opposition to project 16 13%
4 Expressions of opinion about public policy issues that are not NEPA 41 34%
issues
5 Expressions of concern about project costs 26 22%
6 Assertions that analysis was inadequate 14 12%
7 Assertions that documentation was inadequate, difficult to access, 18 15%
and/or not available
8 Comments related to project impacts excluding business impacts 19 16%
9 Assertions that public process was inadequate 7 6%
10 Comments related to MovingAhead service being difficult to use by 4 3%
elderly citizens, people using mobility devices, people who access social
services, and zero vehicle households
11 Comments related to impacts to businesses 6 5%
12 Comments related to improving congestion and/or safety 36 30%
13 Assertion that project is not consistent with other adopted plans 28 23%
14 Comments related to improving regular fixed route service instead of 30 25%
building MovingAhead
15 Expressions of concern about travel time savings projections 3 3%
16 Comments regarding community needs to build for the future 24 20%
17 Expressions of concern about accuracy of ridership projections 7 6%
Exhibit 5
Page 6 of 290
The greatest number of comments fell into six categories:
#2 Expression of support for the MovingAhead Project (40 percent of commenters)

#4 Expressions of opinion about public policy issues that are not NEPA issues (34 percent of
commenters)
#12 Comments related to improving congestion and / or safety (30 percent of commenters)
#14 Comments related to improving regular fixed route service instead of building
MovingAhead (25 percent of commenters)
#5 Expressions of concern about project costs (22 percent of commenters)
#13 Assertion the project is not consistent with other adopted plans (23 percent of
commenters)
Comments on Specific Investment Packages

Though commenters raised quite a few issues, few commenters brought up specific packages. The
packages most frequently commented on were No-Build, Enhanced Corridor, Package C, and EmX. There
were no comments at all for Packages B and E. Enhanced Corridor was the most frequently mentioned,
however, it should be noted that many of those comments reflected that the Enhanced Corridor
package had an appropriate level of transit investment, but that additional investment for people
walking and biking was a priority.
Table 5. Number of Comments on Each Package

No. of Comments on Percent of Commenters Who
Package
Package Commented on Package
No Build 6 5%
Enhanced Corridor 16 13%
A 1 1%
B 0 0%
C 6 5%
D 4 3%
E 0 0%
EmX 7 6%
Comments on Individual Corridors

Comments about individual corridors were more common. If a comment referenced an investment
package, then the comment was counted as commenting on all five corridors. River Road received the
most comments, with just over half of the commenters leaving feedback on that corridor. All other
corridors were commented on by less than half of the respondents.
Table 6. Number of Comments on Each Corridor
Exhibit 5
Page 7 of 290
No. of Comments Percent of Commenters Who
Corridor
on Corridor Commented on Corridor
Highway 99 49 41%
River Road 66 55%
30th Avenue to LCC 51 43%
Coburg Road 58 48%
Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard 51 43%
Who Commented on the Range of Investment Packages

A total of 92 unique individuals commented on the MovingAhead project. The majority of individuals
commented only once. Nine individuals provided separate comments more than once. Separate
comments mean that the individual provided comments using the same and/or different methods
and/or on different dates. For example, an individual could have submitted comment letters on
different dates prior to the October 2019 public hearing, submitted a comment form at the October
2019 open house, provided testimony at the public hearing, and then sent an email after the public
hearing; each of those actions would be considered a separate comment. The highest number of
separate comments by one person who was not representing an organization was seven.
Some individuals chose to identify themselves as members of an organization. Twenty organizations

were represented in the comments. The majority of organizations represented had only one comment
submitted by someone affiliated with the group. Several had two or three comments. Commenters
associated with Better Eugene Springfield Transportation (BEST) submitted a total of 16 comments,
though 10 of these were from one individual. Table 7 shows which groups were represented in the
comment submissions.
Table 7. Organizations Represented in Comments

Organization No. of Comments
350 Eugene 3
Arbor South Architecture 1
Batteries & Bulbs 1
BEST 16
Better Housing Together 1
CDC Management Corp. 1
Coburg Station LLC 1
Cowboys Savannah LLC 1
CSA Planning Limited 2
East West Tea Company (Yogi Tea) 1
Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce 1
G Group 3
GJ Investments, Inc. 1
House Everyone 1
Lane Community College 1
Lang Public Relations 1
League of Women Voters 2
Safe Routes to School 1
Windermere Real Estate 1
Friendly Neighborhood Area Transportation Team 1
Exhibit 5
Page 8 of 290
Consideration of Public Comments
LTD and the City have reviewed all the comments submitted during the comment period. LTD’s
obligation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is to respond to substantive questions
related to the content of the AA and the selection of a preferred alternative. Questions and comments
related to previous or future public policy decisions are considered by decision makers, but not as part
of the AA or selection of a preferred alternative; thus, no response is provided as part of this
environmental review process.
To help ensure that policy-making officials are aware of all the issues raised and opinions expressed,
regardless of whether the comments were considered substantive NEPA comments, this report (which
includes all the comments received by January 7, 2020) will be forwarded to the Project committees, the
LTD Board and the Eugene City Council prior to the May 26, 2021 joint work session of the LTD Board
and Eugene City Council. These decision makers will consider the public comments along with technical
documents and other factors in selecting a preferred package of investments for the MovingAhead
corridors.
Using the Appendices

Appendix A includes copies of advertisements and notices published by LTD and the City to inform the
interested public and agencies about the public review period for the range of investment packages.
Appendix B contains materials and sign-in sheets from the October 21, 2019 Open House and Public
Hearing.
Appendix C organizes and provides responses to comments received. The letters are organized by date
received. “Letter” in this context also includes emails and other forms of communication, including
transcribed oral testimony from the October 21, 2019 public hearing. “Comment” in this context refers
to a main point or theme or question, so that a given letter might include a number of separate
comments. The table contains topic response numbers for each of the comments in each letter
received. The topic response numbers correspond with the table in Appendix D, which provides the full
response to each comment topic area. Letters that contained multiple comment topic areas have
multiple topic response numbers.
When letters contained information regarding an organization that the author belonged to, staff
assumed that the author was speaking as part of their affiliation with that organization. Examples of this
include commenters who identified organizational affiliation in their oral testimony or letters received
via email where the author included their position in an organization in their signature line.
Comment letters in their entirety are reproduced in Appendix E.
Referenced Reports
MovingAhead Alternatives Analysis (September 2018)
MovingAhead Investment Packages Technical Memo (December 2018)
Exhibit 5
Page 9 of 290
MovingAhead Investment Packages Alternatives Supplemental Refinement Report (May 2019)
MovingAhead Outreach Summary (May 2019)
MovingAhead Refined Investment Packages Options for Fall 2019 Public Hearing (October 2019)
Exhibit 5
Page 10 of 290
Appendices
Exhibit 5
Page 11 of 290
Appendix A: Advertisements and Notices Fall 2019
The range of investment packages for consideration in selecting a preferred package of investments was
made available for public review and comment from August 19, 2019 through November 4, 2019. Copies
of advertisements and notices published by LTD and the City to inform interested public and agencies
about the public review period are included in this appendix.
MovingAhead email to Interested Parties List on August 19, 2019
Email to Eugene neighborhood organization leaders on September 23, 2019
Letter to potentially impacted property owners mailed on October 1, 2019
Article in Eugene InMotion newsletter October 06, 2019
Email to Eugene Active Transportation Committee on October 9, 2019
MovingAhead Email to Interested Parties List on October 11, 2019
Press release issued Monday, October 14, 2019
The Register-Guard legal advertisement on Monday October 14, 2019
Exhibit 5
Page 12 of 290
MovingAhead interested parties email 08/19/2019
Exhibit 5
Page 13 of 290
Exhibit 5
Page 14 of 290
Email to Eugene neighborhood association leaders on September 23, 2019
Exhibit 5
Page 15 of 290
Exhibit 5
Page 16 of 290
Letter to potentially impacted property owners mailed on 10/01/2019
Exhibit 5
Page 17 of 290
Exhibit 5
Page 18 of 290
Article in Eugene InMotion newsletter on October 6, 2019
Exhibit 5
Page 19 of 290
Email to Eugene Active Transportation Committee on October 9, 2019
Exhibit 5
Page 20 of 290
MovingAhead Email to Interested Parties List on October 11, 2019
Exhibit 5
Page 21 of 290
Exhibit 5
Page 22 of 290
Exhibit 5
Page 23 of 290
Press release issued Monday, October 14, 2019
Exhibit 5
Page 24 of 290
Exhibit 5
Page 25 of 290
The Register-Guard legal advertisement on Monday October 14, 2019
Exhibit 5
Page 26 of 290
Appendix B: October 21, 2019 Open House and Public
Hearing Materials
This appendix contains materials and sign-in sheets from the October 21, 2019 Open House and Public
Hearing.
Exhibit 5
Page 27 of 290
fctober1
Me= 1V'IngAh€.'ad
STREETS AND PEACES REIMAGINEfi
-1 Q y,
p
~ 1 ~I +13 U ~ '' R,`~ ~ c~ t~' ~ ~ '(J~ t +I-S, . ~' 0 0-1 ~' N
J~qq ( ' N
oWtI ~/",M~.c`ir` L~ /ivy1 sa✓ +e 67: Ll.t' 01ilk._ (&bfMe-r".-ki:..dn~ v
Y N
~, 1 ~ ✓ ,/
6 6 G-'d
c'~j,•C..fCt'G~~Y~~.V"5'E"~'~ Y'1~'Z.~~ -
V f`y N
0e
4 CLI c%)
N
~&'
N
N
s [
(➢ cl,P /C>U (}GV` J uUl~ ~~i4 ~~ rI Y
~d
/ Y N
1̀~ ( ,
17 1Z
— / !' ~ N
Yjh
p
Y i1 N
^~ ~I.ry1 ✓ / p
(~~''~~ p$ ~°! d 6~ i \ p /,,~ ,r qA ~ y~/ f Y \ l V %l *`~ "4 6"~`/ B B I e
° I J% bit' `vV l U ~'~—"` 'L~ ~. ;~ bs~ dV LL/ :,...~ 4q ~. "~'tl ~, ~' 0 / 4J G~ ®. ( ® 6
Y N
(~ ~ 1 \ 5 ~~ l ~7 ~ L ~~ { V<~l J ~ 1 f• ~~ 6 ~7 L G 6'1 C,~ u~ ~ ~0 C ~ ~Cc f) ,
J Y N
Z_~ 1 1
-le V,- — c- / X-I1/1 l/
0- ~ ' L ~L N
t. (Y N
•, y
;
2,4; ..sue L~ ! y c._ y~ '
N
C AST C CL-14-05 o- I L~ j--
Note: any informati n provided to the agencies may be released to a third party as part of the agencies' public record for the Mo " Ahead project. This in udes he release of identifiable personal information such as personal name, address, phone number, etc.
`
SHEET_
Exhibit 5
Page 28 of 290
Jv
rn ~
/ .."M,
.✓
all: I • • • Y,; • ?: •:
y
fctober 21, 2019

C vin Ahead
STREETS AND PLACES REIMAI INEO
MAN111~' 111111
-•B Al . 0
gee ••-
Y
C N
tl ~ y.. n= !k~ '~ °"b l'J ~
j +^''4 ~jLL~" ~'l ~ ~j ~, ~ ~.l / ~l ~cr ~' s .,i~. .. y~~~.2.~te ~'K.,~C~~C-~f 1° ✓ ~2~t". -P-''D°s=1
c~~'9
`S R ..3 L~U'%`h.'i C— GJ'ie CASf~ 7 Z,iJ~

~I '/``- ~✓' l ~J\
~. ~ U I ~/!~a°V( 'lY / N
~{ r' ll ~ ~ 1 (~ / " ~'V ✓ ~ ~Y 6•~~ ~VJ ~ I ~ r ~Yg V~i / j
y Y
~^
h
N
p
~"J- ~~. .... ~} ~rG t G~.Lp'1
~ ~ Cl @ ~ 4.~ J
l
'j
UL/V L l" ~5 cr v'iE F' i~ G2 7et~e cet N
J Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y IN
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Note: any information provided to the agencies may be released to a third party as part of the agencies' public record for the MovingAhead project. This includes the release of identifiable personal information such as personal name, address, phone number, etc.
SHEET_
Exhibit 5
Page 29 of 290
Exhibit 5
Page 30 of 290
Exhibit 5
Page 31 of 290
Exhibit 5
Page 32 of 290
Appendix C: Comments Received During the Public
Hearing Comment Period and Responses to Comments
Comment Date Name of Commenter Organization/Affiliation Topic Response
Number Received Numbers
1 5/13/2019 Rob Zako BEST 4, 5, 7, 14
2 6/5/2019 Jan Moore 10, 14
3 7/11/2019 Rob Zako BEST 4, 5, 7, 12, 14
4 7/12/2019 David Davini G Group 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 17
5 7/29/2019 Rob Zako BEST 1, 4, 7, 13
6 8/7/2019 CJ Norris 9, 14
7 8/27/2019 Rob Zako BEST 1, 12
8 8/28/2019 Devon Gregory 2, 4, 12
9 9/29/2019 Devon Gregory 2
10 9/18/2019 Lisa Grissell 2, 16
11 9/18/2019 Deborah Bernhard 2, 4, 16
12 9/19/2019 Devon Gregory 5, 6
13 9/20/2019 Devon Gregory 2, 4, 16
14 10/6/2019 Kara Schnoes 12
15 10/10/201 Devon Gregory 2, 16
9
16 10/11/201 Paul Conte 7
9
17 10/11/201 Gay Morgan 14
9
18 10/11/201 Meta Maxwell 7, 9
9
19 10/11/201 Phillip Farrington 8
9
20 10/11/201 Karrie Walters- 2, 4, 12, 16
9 Warren
21 10/11/201 Jeb Bartin 3, 4, 8, 11, 14
9
22 10/14/201 Rob Zako BEST 1, 2, 5, 12, 13
9
23 10/14/201 Luke Callahan 12
9
24 10/14/201 Ellen Webber East West Tea Company 12
9 (Yogi Tea)
25 10/14/201 Lori Deskins 12, 14
9
26 10/14/201 Lisa Calevi 12
9
Exhibit 5
Page 33 of 290
27 10/14/201 Cathy Feely 12
9
28 10/15/201 Carol Caruso 14
9
29 10/15/201 Hillary Kittleson 2, 4, 16
9
30 10/15/201 Rob Zako BEST 2, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14,
9 15, 16, 17
31 10/15/201 Jess Roshak 4
9
32 10/15/201 Jessica Synder- 1, 4
9 Contreras
33 10/16/201 Emma Newman 2
9
34 10/16/201 Sue Wolling 2, 4, 13, 14, 16
9
35 10/16/201 Michael Jungjohann 4
9
36 10/17/201 Keli Osborn League of Women Voters 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 16
9
37 10/17/201 Terri Berling 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 16
9
38 10/17/201 Alice Davenport Freindly Neighborhood 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 16
9 Area Transportation
team; observer/advisor to
BEST; League of Women
Voters Lane County
39 10/17/201 Diane Haas 4, 10
9
40 10/18/201 John Lochner 7, 8
9
41 10/18/201 David Davini G Group 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 17
9
42 10/18/201 B Breaden 2, 4, 12
9
43 10/20/201 Robert Jorgensen 12
9
44 10/20/201 Nicole Rund 4, 7, 14
9
45 10/20/201 Ken Schmidt Windermere Real Estate 3, 4, 5, 14
9
46 10/21/201 Kip Anderson 2, 4, 15
9
47 10/21/201 Jeff Robinson GJ Investments, Inc. 3, 8, 12
9
Exhibit 5
Page 34 of 290
48 10/21/201 John Keana 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 14
9
49 10/20/201 Dennis Sandow 3, 4, 9, 13
9
50 10/21/201 Beverly Barr 2
9
51 10/22/201 Nathan Emerson CSA Planning Limited 17
9
52 10/21/201 Paul Conte 4
9
53 10/21/201 Gary Wildish 2, 4
9
54 10/21/201 Dennis Sandow 3, 4, 13
9
55 10/21/201 Maxwell Thomas 1
9 Vuylsteke
56 10/21/201 David Wade 2, 4, 13
9
57 10/21/201 Christopher Logan 2, 8, 14
9
58 10/21/201 Rob Zako BEST 2, 5, 12, 13
9
59 10/21/201 Sarah Mazze Safe Routes to School 2, 5, 12, 13
9
60 10/21/201 Phillip Farrington CDC Management Corp. 8
9
61 10/21/201 Laura Potter BEST 2, 4, 12
9
62 10/21/201 Marianne Nolte BEST 2, 5
9
63 10/21/201 Phil Barnhart 4, 8
9
64 10/21/201 Jolene Siemsen 2, 12, 13, 16
9
65 10/21/201 Mike Eyster 2, 5, 16
9
66 10/21/201 Seth Sadofsky 2, 5, 12
9
67 10/21/201 Theresa Parker 2, 12, 16
9
68 10/21/201 Claire Ribaud 350 Eugene 12, 13, 14, 16
9
69 10/21/201 Jack Taylor 2, 12, 13, 14
9
70 10/21/201 Matt McCrae 2, 13, 16
9
Exhibit 5
Page 35 of 290
71 10/21/201 Kaarin Knudsen Better Housing Together 2, 4, 12, 13, 16
9
72 10/21/201 Jim Neu 2, 12, 13, 16
9
73 10/21/201 Carmen Fore 2, 12, 13, 14, 16
9
74 10/21/201 Barbara Perrin 350 Eugene, BEST 2, 4, 13, 16
9
75 10/21/201 Patty Hine 350 Eugene 12, 13, 14
9
76 10/21/201 Richard Self House Everyone 4
9
77 10/21/201 Julie Daniel 2, 12, 14
9
78 10/21/201 Nick Dikas 2, 12, 13, 14, 16
9
79 10/21/201 Linda Perrine 1, 6, 12, 13, 14
9
80 10/21/201 Meta Maxwell 6, 7, 9
9
81 10/21/201 Claire Roth BEST 2, 12, 13
9
82 10/21/201 Bob Passaro BEST 12, 13
9
83 10/21/201 Tiffany Edwards Eugene Area Chamber of 2, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13,
9 Commerce 16
84 10/21/201 David Davini G Group 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 17
9
85 10/21/201 Peter Bolander 5, 14
9
86 10/21/201 George Rode 8, 10, 11, 12
9
87 10/21/201 Jay Harland CSA Planning Limited 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 17
9
88 10/21/201 Steve Korin 2, 4, 12
9
89 10/21/201 Dick Beers 3, 4
9
90 10/21/201 Christopher Logan 2, 3, 8, 14
9
91 10/21/201 Rob Zako BEST 2, 4
9
92 10/22/201 Bill Randall Arbor South Architecture 2, 5, 13, 14
9
93 10/22/201 Devon 2
9
Exhibit 5
Page 36 of 290
94 10/22/201 Eric Vance Cowboys Savannah LLC 3, 6, 8, 11
9
95 10/23/201 George Jessie 3, 5, 14
9
96 10/23/201 Meta Maxwell 4, 6, 7, 9, 10
9
97 10/23/201 Jeffrey Robinson 3, 5, 8, 15
9
98 10/23/201 Peter Bolander 2, 5, 7, 14
9
99 10/24/201 Therese Lang Lang Public Relations 2, 9, 16
9
100 10/27/201 Leslie Mitchell 2, 5, 8, 12, 14, 17
9
101 10/28/201 Bernadette Ross 9
9
102 10/28/201 Virginia Heer 2, 8, 14
9
103 10/29/201 Christopher Logan 3, 8, 14
9
104 10/29/201 Tony Perez Batteries & Bulbs 11
9
105 11/3/2019 Alex Bauman 2, 12, 13, 14, 16
106 11/4/2019 Meta Maxwell 7, 11
107 11/4/2019 Mark Johnson 2, 16
108 11/4/2019 Becky Riley 3, 8
109 11/5/2019 Meta Maxwell 7
110 11/8/2019 John Quilter 2, 5, 8, 14
111 11/8/2019 Meta Maxwell 4, 5, 7, 9
112 11/11/201 Brandon Vaughan 3, 5, 10
9
113 11/12/201 Brad Vaughn Coburg Station LLC 5, 9, 11
9
114 11/12/201 Rob Zako BEST 7, 9
9
115 11/12/201 Meta Maxwell 6, 7, 9
9
116 11/26/201 Rob Zako BEST 4, 5, 7
9
117 12/13/201 Carleen Reilly 2, 12, 16
9
118 12/31/201 Michelle OLeary 2, 4
9
119 1/3/2020 Paula Thonney Lane Community College 2, 12
Exhibit 5
Page 37 of 290
120 1/7/2020 Devon Gregory 12, 16
Exhibit 5
Page 38 of 290
Appendix D: Responses to 17 Comment Topic Areas
Comment Response
Summary of Comment Topic Area Response
Topic # #
General comment neither supporting nor opposing project Thank you for taking the time to provide a comment on the
MovingAhead Project. Your participation in this project is
important to LTD and the City of Eugene. Because LTD and the
City recognize the importance of having local decision makers
aware of all the input we received, all comments received by
January 7, 2020 will be forwarded to the LTD Board of
Directors and the Eugene City Council before their joint work
1 1
session on May 26, 2021. The distribution of the comments
and the associated report was delayed because of the COVID-
19 pandemic.
Please note that LTD and the City consider all comments, even
if they were not specifically relevant under NEPA and other
pertinent environmental regulations.
Comments (not NEPA specific) support project: Thank you for taking the time to provide a comment on the
• Generally supports project MovingAhead Project. Your participation in this project is
• Supports specific investment package important to LTD and the City of Eugene. Because LTD and the
• Supports modified version of specific package City recognize the importance of having local decision makers
• Supports premium EmX service aware of all the input we received, all comments received by
• Need to find tactical ways to implement improvements January 7, 2020 will be forwarded to the LTD Board of
faster, make incremental improvements Directors and the Eugene City Council before their joint work
2 • EmX system is a role model for accessibility session on May 26, 2021. The distribution of the comments 2
• Find ways to fund MLK, Jr Blvd improvements and the associated report was delayed because of the COVID-
• Prioritize transit service to Highway 99 corridor and other 19 pandemic.
areas where residents have fewest transportation options
• Support Coburg Road improvements but requires a separate Your comments of support for a specific corridor or
process to complete suggestions for modifications to specific corridors will be
• Need EmX on specific corridor otherwise will continue to get considered in the final determination of a preferred package
worse of investments. In selecting a preferred package of
Exhibit 5
Page 39 of 290
Comment Response
Topic # #
• Specific corridor is ready for EmX investments, decision makers may include suggested
• Specific corridor improvements support long range planning modifications. After approval of the preferred package of
efforts investments along with any suggested modifications, the
• Good for the community investment packages will be returned to the project team to
• We need to pay our fair share of transit projects with local continue working with the community through a design
dollars refinement process.
• BRT projects spend far more dollars on roadway
improvements and community enhancements (like storm
water system, bike/ped improvements, improved bridges)
than on transit improvements which positively affect
community
• EmX projects have improved our community
Comments (Not NEPA specific) opposing project: Thank you for taking the time to provide a comment on the
• Submitted articles not specifically related to project MovingAhead Project. Your participation in this project is
• Submitted project info but no associated comments important to LTD and the City of Eugene. Because LTD and the
• Submitted own analysis City recognize the importance of having local decision makers
• EmX is inflexible aware of all the input we received, all comments received by
• EmX locks LTD into operating costs regardless of demand January 7, 2020 will be forwarded to the LTD Board of
• Don’t want project because not a transit user Directors and the Eugene City Council before their joint work
3 • Prefers freedom of traveling via automobile session on May 26, 2021. The distribution of the comments 3
• Middle class / wealthy people don' t use the bus and the associated report was delayed because of the COVID-
• Improvements on Coburg Road won’t fix its congestion and 19 pandemic.
safety problems
• Don’t build EmX on specific corridor Your comments of opposition for the project or a specific
corridor or suggestions for eliminating specific modes on a
corridor or eliminating specific corridors will be considered in
the final determination of a preferred package of investments.
Comments expressing an opinion about public policy issues LTD’s obligation under NEPA is to respond to questions
that are not NEPA issues, including topics such as: related to the AA and the selection of a preferred package of
• Linking transit programs with affordable housing programs investments, not to questions or comments related to
4 • Linking transit programs to serving homeless population previous or future public policy decisions such as using or not 4
• Using electric vehicles instead of buses using certain funding sources for this project. However, it is
• Prioritizing other transportation projects and social services important that policy-making officials know how commenters
programs over MovingAhead feel about the issues raised and, therefore, all comments
Exhibit 5
Page 40 of 290
Comment Response
Topic # #
received by January 7, 2020 will be forwarded to the LTD
Board of Directors and the Eugene City Council before their
joint work session on May 26, 2021. The distribution of the
comments and the associated report was delayed because of
the COVID-19 pandemic.
The decisions surrounding the MovingAhead Project have

followed the same decision-making process followed for other
transportation projects in the region. The Metropolitan Policy
Committee of the local metropolitan planning organization is
comprised of elected and appointed officials representing the
cities of Eugene, Springfield, and Coburg; Lane County; the
Oregon Department of Transportation; and Lane Transit
District. This decision-making body makes funding decisions
for all federally funded projects in the region. The first three
EmX corridor decisions were managed in this manner and
continuing to use this method is appropriate.
Additionally, a critical function of the regional transportation

planning process is to help balance competing demands
placed on the transportation system as the region grows.
Determining the best means for improving the transportation
system and meeting future demands with limited resources is
challenging. The framework for making decisions on the
future of the region’s transportation system has become more
complex in recent years. Public agencies play a primary role in
providing transportation system infrastructure. The Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) provides the venue to ensure that
transportation infrastructure improvements are coordinated
and within the proper scope of each agency. LTD’s and the
City’s infrastructure investments are necessarily related to the
regional transportation and transit network improvements.
Suggested roadway improvements unrelated to the
MovingAhead Project are outside the scope of this project;
Exhibit 5
Page 41 of 290
Comment Response
Topic # #
therefore, all comments received regarding those concerning
transportation and transit improvements beyond the scope of
the MovingAhead Project, will be forwarded to the
appropriate agencies and project managers.
Comments expressing concern about project costs: Chapter 10 of the AA describes the capital and operating costs
• Costs to implement EmX are too high when FTN can be of the various alternatives and addresses questions of
achieved for far less affordability. Chapter 10 further states that one of the primary
• Cost per rider is too high goals of the MovingAhead Project is to facilitate an
• Operational costs are too high investment decision-making process for near-term (within 10
• Can LTD/cities afford to build the MA service years) multimodal investments in multiple corridors. This
• Use other funding for capital instead of bus operations approach differs from the decision-making approach
money previously used in our community. Selecting and prioritizing
• Not spending public money wisely capital investments in multimodal transit corridors will be a
• Need to consider competing community needs powerful tool for implementing local and regional
• Federal money may not be available comprehensive land use and transportation plans, agency
• Funding EmX service could result in future service cuts strategic plans, and other community planning documents.
Chapter 10 of the AA also describes LTD’s funding sources and

their sensitivity to swings in the local economy, and how the
5 5
agency adjusts service depending on (a) funding availability,
(b) increased demand, and (c) running time issues. In early
2020, overall system performance, based on indicators such
as on-time performance and ridership, remained high. Not
long after the original version of this memo and the responses
to comments were drafted, the COVID-19 pandemic struck
the United States. Currently, in spring 2021, LTD is evaluating
the impacts of the pandemic on the transit system. Impacts of
the pandemic and implications for future transit service will
be considered by LTD and its regional partners in funding for
the investment packages.
As documented in Chapter 10 of the AA, LTD has considered

the risk of future financial challenges. The project would not
Exhibit 5
Page 42 of 290
Comment Response
Topic # #
be affected by the risks differently than the No-Build
Alternative.
Several commenters expressed opinions on policy or

administrative issues related to local, regional or federal
transit funding. Since these comments do not address
substantive NEPA issues or the adequacy of the AA, no
response is required. However, please note that a critical
function of the regional transportation planning process is to
help balance competing demands placed on the
transportation system as the region grows including
determining the best means for improving the transportation
system and meeting future demands with limited resources.
Comments related to inadequate analysis: LTD and the City have considered each of the comments that
• Not enough time to study all of the routes suggest (with varying degrees of detail) that the AA and
• Failed to study Franklin Boulevard subsequent analyses include specific data, analysis, or
• If adequate analysis had been performed, then would know projections that are incorrect or questionable. LTD and the
that 30th-LCC corridor not needed at this time City find these comments either without basis or, in some
• Failed to study Hwy 126 cases, that even if the assertions are true, the accuracy of the
• Failed to study GHG emissions / climate change specific data or projection in question is not determinative of
• Failed to study economic impacts of EmX the overall soundness of the AA’s conclusions. LTD and the
• Need more study to determine if EmX is right solution City believe that the overall analysis is accurate and provides
• AA leaves too many unanswered questions the information needed to review and take action on a
package of investments, recognizing that there is always going
6 to be additional data or analysis that could be performed. 6
The evaluation process requires LTD and the City to consider a

broad array of information and data and make predictions
about future conditions. Because the environmental review
process must occur early in project design, the analytical work
often depends on judgments and estimations that will be
refined and corrected as design details emerge. LTD and the
City recognize that some estimates about the future may be
accurate and others may fall short of the reality. However,
LTD and the City believe that the technical work supporting
the AA reflects standard methodology and approaches; that
Exhibit 5
Page 43 of 290
Comment Response
Topic # #
estimates were developed using professional standards and
appropriate professional judgment; and that the AA allows a
reasonable basis for determining whether the project is likely
to cause significant adverse impacts. The AA appropriately
provides a basis for determining the nature and scale of
impacts, for developing appropriate mitigation, and for
assessing the likely effectiveness of the mitigation.
The decision to select an investment package advances that
package for further study. It does not result in the direct
implementation of corridor investments. Approval of a project
on a particular corridor would require further action, which
would be taken only after additional data gathering and
analysis and input from the public and property owners.
Comments related to inadequate documentation and/or This project has evolved over several years and has undergone
access to documentation: reports / data not easy to find or not extensive public review and revision. The many documents
available on LTD’s web site referenced in the AA and in the community outreach efforts
• Supporting information not sent with notices to property correlate directly with the depth of analysis to which the
owners project has been subjected. They have been incorporated by
• Website is confusing reference into the AA. LTD and the City believe that the EA
7 • Not sure how to find concept plans appropriately attempts to satisfy NEPA’s mandates to provide 7
• Naming MLK, Jr Blvd corridor alternative is misleading public an understandable discussion of the most relevant analyses
about extent of improvements on this road for the general public, while still providing all the necessary
references to the many supporting, more-detailed studies that
have been produced over the project’s history and have been
made available on LTD’s website and/or at LTD or City of
Eugene offices.
Comments related to project impacts excluding businesses: The AA and subsequent analyses and documentation
• Benefits do not outweigh project impacts adequately addresses the impacts, mitigation, cost and
• EmX does not offer enough community benefit to justify tradeoffs of the corridor alternatives, the No-Build Alternative
8 eminent domain and the investment package alternatives. 8
• Specific to: trees; parking; businesses; property access;
carbon footprint / global warming / climate change; rivers; Benefits and impacts of alternatives were considered in the
stormwater runoff; increased density; heritage trees; AA process and in the development and refinement of the
investment package alternatives. With its supporting
Exhibit 5
Page 44 of 290
Comment Response
Topic # #
environment; ROW acquisition; street signage; street documents, the AA adequately describes the multi-year
lighting; streetscapes process of developing, evaluating, assessing and refining
• Find solutions in existing ROW alternatives, which resulted in the investment package
• Inherent conflicts between City setback policies and need alternatives. See AA Chapters 1 and 2, Chapters 4 through 10,
for additional ROW and documents cited therein for the evaluation of corridor
alternatives. Corridor plans were developed with
consideration of minimizing right-of-way acquisitions and
other adverse impacts, while still providing the improvements
necessary to meet project goals. Subsequent analyses and
outreach were used to prepare investment package
alternatives. Each of the investment package alternatives
under consideration were assessed using 52 performance
measures to determine the effectiveness when compared to
the 17 objectives, which were developed from the project’s
Purpose and Need. The application of these performance
measures helped show how well the alternatives met the
project goals. When comparing the corridor alternatives, it
was determined that findings were very close for many of the
52 performance measures. Additional analyses focused on 24
key performance measures aided in highlighting differences
between the alternatives. The findings of the performance
measures and how they were used to develop and refine the
investment package alternatives are documented in several
technical memos published in 2018 and 2019. The public was
presented this information and involved at each step of
refining the investment package alternatives.
The consideration of tradeoffs will be made by the LTD and
City decision makers when selecting the preferred package of
investments.
Comments related to an inadequate public process: NEPA requires the project proponents engage in meaningful
• Project not transparent public involvement. LTD and the City conducted extensive
9 9
• No one talked to the transit users public engagement throughout the project from concept
• Not notified of other public input opportunities
Exhibit 5
Page 45 of 290
Comment Response
Topic # #
• Insufficient notice / information given prior to public hearing development (at project outset design workshops were held
• Auto drivers ignored in process in each corridor where the corridor community designed the
• Not sure where to submit comments improvements that best met their vision) through design
refinement and refinement of the investment packages
presented for consideration by decision makers. Although the
public involvement undertaken for this project exceeds what
is required under NEPA or any other applicable law, the effort
conducted by LTD and the City is commensurate with the
scale of the MovingAhead Project and community
expectations.
LTD and the City, like other agencies, have several
institutionalized public transparency guarantees. For instance,
the LTD Accessible Transportation Committee provides
guidance and oversight of the region's Coordinated Human
Services Transportation plan. The LTD Strategic Planning
Committee provides feedback on issues related to transit
investments. The LTD Budget Committee pairs seven citizen
members with LTD’s seven board members to develop the
annual operating budget. LTD posts for public review its
annual independent audits and comprehensive annual
financial reports. Finally, LTD employs an internal auditor who
evaluates policies and procedures, audits processes, and
develops controls to ensure LTD is managing its funds and
other assets effectively and efficiently.
The City, similarly, has advisory bodies that provide input to
City Council and staff, such as the Active Transportation
Committee and Planning Commission, among others. The
city’s Budget Committee pairs the eight City Councilors with
eight citizen members to make recommendations on the city’s
annual operating and capital budgets. The City posts for
public review its annual independent audits and
comprehensive annual financial reports. Finally, the City
employs an internal auditor who evaluates policies and
Exhibit 5
Page 46 of 290
Comment Response
Topic # #
procedures, audits processes, and develops controls to ensure
the City is managing its funds and other assets effectively and
efficiently.
In addition, LTD and the City employed a variety of
engagement tools and project-specific methods to encourage
public involvement. Since 2015, LTD and the City have
engaged local, state and federal agencies in the development,
review and refinement of the project. These efforts are well
documented in the AA, particularly in Chapter 2. More
detailed documentation is provided in the AA’s technical
report, Community Involvement, Agency Coordination, Tribal
Consultation, and Environmental Justice Technical Report (July
2017), as well as in subsequent technical memos summarizing
public outreach and engagement conducted during the
development and refinement of the investment packages.
Since 2015, the public involvement program for the project
solicited early and continued feedback from stakeholder
groups and incorporated that input into the decision-making
process. The project has solicited feedback from a Sounding
Board composed of members of LTD’s and the City’s
committees. An Oversight Committee, composed of elected
and appointed officials (from Lane County, LTD, and the City
of Eugene) and high-level staff (from ODOT, Lane County, LTD,
and the City of Eugene), has provided feedback on the project.
LTD’s Strategic Planning Committee has also advised LTD on
the project. Feedback from these groups has been
incorporated into the project’s Purpose, Needs, Goals, and
Objectives; project designs; Alternatives Analysis; and the
development and refinement of investment packages. LTD
and the City of Eugene have employed a wide range of other
strategies and tools to seek feedback from disability groups,
environmental advocacy groups, business groups, active
Exhibit 5
Page 47 of 290
Comment Response
Topic # #
transportation groups, and many others throughout the
process.
The AA and associated documents show that the corridor
conceptual designs and eventual investment package options
were shaped by hundreds of meetings with the community
and stakeholders.
Finally, the AA was published on September 10, 2018 with a
30-day public review period (closed October 10, 2018). LTD
and the City continued accepting comments until December
16, 2018, nine weeks after the public review period closed.
LTD and the City provided numerous in person and online
opportunities for public comment during the process to refine
and select the preferred package of investments. Prior to the
October 21, 2019 public hearing on the preferred investment
package, LTD and the City held a drop-in session to assist
citizens with their review of the preferred investment package
and provided guidance on how to effectively provide
testimony at the public hearing. Written comments were
accepted at the drop-in session. Public testimony was given at
the public hearing. Written comments from the public were
accepted through January 7, 2020.
Future work on the project, including additional design
refinements and environmental review will require additional
community engagement and feedback from the public and
property owners.
Comments related to MA service will be difficult to use by: LTD and the City disagree that the high capacity transit
• Elderly citizens services being considered for the MovingAhead Project will
• People who mobility devices cause problems for seniors and riders with disabilities.
• People who need access to social services MovingAhead considers a range of BRT service that could
10 10
• Zero vehicle households resemble fixed route service to existing EmX service in
approach and technology, and would be consistent with
industry standards. MovingAhead also proposes
improvements related to traffic congestion (e.g., improved
Exhibit 5
Page 48 of 290
Comment Response
Topic # #
signalization, installing left turn lanes) as well as improved
safety and access for bicyclists and pedestrians (e.g., adding
roadway crossings, crossing signals, connecting gaps in
sidewalks).
LTD and the City disagree with comments specifically stating
that EmX is difficult for many seniors and riders with
disabilities. We have found that BRT is easier to use than
regular bus service. Helpful features include level boarding,
the greater capacity to carry mobility devices given the higher
frequency, and easier access to boarding platforms; these
tend to make BRT more comfortable, more convenient, easier
to use, and safer for those with accessibility issues.
In addition, EmX stops have been chosen with consideration
for their proximity to housing and key destinations for riders
with accessibility issues.
Comments regarding impacts to businesses: The AA carefully analyzes on-street and off-street parking
• Businesses are hurt when losing on-street parking impacts of the various alternatives. Mitigation measures are
• Businesses are hurt when losing off-street parking proposed to reduce the impact to parking spaces on private
• Construction causes businesses to lose customers / revenue property. LTD and the City are committed to continue working
with private property owners during more detailed design
phases to use existing right-of-way, sidewalk reductions
and/or station design modifications, wherever possible, to
11 minimize even further the project’s property and parking
impacts. LTD and the City will also provide parking lot redesign
and/or restriping where feasible, to reduce even more the
parking loss on private property.
More parking related information and analysis is provided in
AA Chapters 4 through 9 as well as in the AA’s technical
reports: Transportation Technical Report (July 2017), Memo
Addendum to MovingAhead Alternatives Analysis Technical
Exhibit 5
Page 49 of 290
Comment Response
Topic # #
Reports (July 2017), Mitigation Addendum Exhibits (July
2017).
Comments related to congestion and safety: MovingAhead Project objectives seek to improve the safety
• Make the cities safe for all roadway users including EmX for all roadway users along the corridors and crossing the
• Improve bike and pedestrian safety corridors. Performance measures used to evaluate corridor
• Eliminate driveways on major arterials to reduce congestion alternatives and investment package alternatives were
and improve safety developed from the Project’s objectives. All of the Project’s
• Congestion and safety are terrible in my area build alternatives improve safety in the corridors to varying
• All 5 corridors need to resolve connectivity, access and degrees, and the higher level of safety improvements are
congestion issues often associated with a higher level of infrastructure
• Use the money to fix congestion and safety on roadways investments.
first
Measures to improve congestion in the corridors were also
considered, but to a lesser degree than measures to improve
12
safety.
More safety and congestion related information and analysis
is provided in AA Chapters 4 through 9 as well as in the AA’s
technical reports: Transportation Technical Report (July 2017),
Memo Addendum to MovingAhead Alternatives Analysis
Technical Reports (July 2017), Mitigation Addendum Exhibits
(July 2017).
Consideration of tradeoffs (benefits, costs and impacts) will be
made by LTD and City decision makers when selecting the
preferred package of investments.
Comments about the project not consistent with other The MovingAhead Project has been jointly sponsored by LTD
adopted plans: and the City of Eugene. LTD, City and other agency staff have
• Eugene’s long range plan participated in the development, review and refinement of
• Region’s long range plans the MovingAhead Project alternatives to assure its
13
• Envision Eugene consistency with the City’s land use, transportation, safety,
• Land use plans/ordinances climate change, and social equity goals and plans.
• Nodal development
• Transportation plans
Exhibit 5
Page 50 of 290
Comment Response
Topic # #
• Safety plans More information and analysis related to local and regional
• Social equity goals adopted plans is provided in AA Chapters 4 through 9 as well
• West Eugene EmX plans as in the AA’s technical reports.
• Projected population
The RTP guides planning and development of the
transportation system within the Central Lane Transportation
Management Area (TMA). It seeks to meet the TMA’s
transportation demands over at least a 20-year planning
horizon, while also addressing transportation issues and
making changes that can contribute to improvements in the
region’s quality of life and economic vitality. It considers all
transportation modes: roadways, transit, bike and pedestrian
circulation, freight movement and regional aspects of air, rail
and inter-city bus service.
This federally required regional planning process ensures that
the planning activities and investments of the local
jurisdictions are coordinated in terms of intent, timing, and
effect. Projects in the RTP are initiated at the local and state
level (i.e., within the planning processes of Eugene,
Springfield, Coburg, LTD, Lane County and ODOT). Projects
that anticipate Federal funding or are regionally significant
with potential impacts on air quality must be included in the
RTP.
Federal and state laws require the RTP to include
transportation policies and expected actions, and to be
“financially constrained” (i.e., it assumes only revenues that
are reasonably expected to be available over the planning
period). The RTP must also demonstrate compliance with
federal and state air quality requirements. Thus,
MovingAhead corridor investments are based upon and
consistent with adopted policies and plans for the region.
Exhibit 5
Page 51 of 290
Comment Response
Topic # #
Comments related to improving regular fixed route service Many of these comments address policy decisions to be made
instead of MA: by the LTD Board and Eugene City Council and are outside of
• LTD needs to stop reducing routes, eliminating stops, the NEPA process. Nevertheless, the AA and the documents
reducing service area cited therein demonstrate that LTD and the City performed a
• Increase service frequency on specific route to make it more thorough planning effort before arriving at the package of
convenient investment alternatives presented at the October 2019 public
• Need a route that uses Beltline so don't have to go through hearing for informing the selection of a preferred package of
downtown investments in the five corridors. The AA process addressed
• Disabled people have to wait for next bus / healthy people fundamental questions: What are the problems in the
take up disabled seats
corridor? What are their underlying causes? What are viable
• Increase service area on specific roads
options for addressing these problems? What are their costs
• Add more connector service
and benefits?
• Existing system needs to be more efficient
• Existing bus service is sufficient (“existing buses are empty”) The MovingAhead Project introduced a new level of transit
• Priority should be to increase ridership, frequency, service service for consideration: Enhanced Corridor. The Enhanced
coverage of current system Corridor transit service concept can range from limited
• Need to build a system that people will use improvements to a relatively high level of investments that
14 • Don’t change the existing system are comparable to EmX in some features, like transit signal
• Keep a specific bus route priority and enhanced bus stops. Both EmX and Enhanced
• Keep service on a specific corridor Corridor transit service would meet the goals of LTD’s
Frequent Transit Network (FTN) strategy. Enhanced Corridor
service is a new concept for LTD and represents the lower end
of the spectrum of transit infrastructure investments on LTD’s
FTN. The Enhanced Corridor Alternative includes safety and
access improvements for people walking and biking and may
or may not include branded buses.
The AA planning process examined regular bus routes (the No-
Build Alternative) as an alternative to Enhanced Corridor and
EmX service.
At its core, alternatives analysis is about serving local decision
making. It is a locally managed study process that relies to a
large extent on information about regional travel patterns,
problems, and needs generated as part of the metropolitan
Exhibit 5
Page 52 of 290
Comment Response
Topic # #
transportation planning process, as specified by 23 CFR Part
450 FTA/Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Joint Final
Rule on Metropolitan and Statewide Planning. Local agencies
participating in an alternatives analysis have broad latitude in
how the study is to be performed. Chapter 1 of the AA Report
describes how the alternatives were evaluated. The discussion
in the AA and supporting documents shows that LTD and the
City reasonably decided to propose various alternatives for
the investment package alternatives.
Comments expressing concerns about projected travel time Travel time estimates used throughout the AA and
savings: subsequent analyses are based on industry standards,
• Projections from prior projects have proven unreliable methodologies, and technical modeling. Ridership information
• Poor travel times (walking to stop, waiting, riding) make it and analysis is provided in AA Chapters 4 through 9. The
faster to drive ridership technical details, results and methodology are
15 provided in the AA’s Transportation Technical Report (July
2017).
LTD and the City believe that the travel time estimates are
valid and appropriate for the concept level design of this
Project.
MovingAhead is a joint project of the City of Eugene and Lane
Transit District that was formed to coordinate investments
Comments regarding building for the future: along key transportation corridors and is based upon the
• Need to build long term solution with dedicated lanes that is planning efforts of the City of Eugene, Lane Transit District,
efficient and highly usable and regional partners. As such, MovingAhead is intended to
• Good for the community facilitate a partnership effort that meets the current and
16 future needs of the community.
• Great investment
• Supports adopted/approved City plans The next steps in the process include a coordinated effort
• Need coordinated planning to move forward between LTD and the City of Eugene to identify funding,
• Good for the environment coordinate on the timing of transit and transportation
• Build what we can afford improvements, and begin to further refine designs with
• Need funding strategies to efficiently implement program additional community engagement and environmental review
Exhibit 5
Page 53 of 290
Comment Response
Topic # #
so that LTD and the City can more efficiently implement the
preferred package of investments.
Comments about accuracy of ridership projections: Decision makers weigh a variety of financial and non-
• Ridership projections are wrong economic factors (including both costs and benefits) in
• Previous ridership projections were wrong deciding whether a major expenditure is justified. Ridership
projections are one of many factors considered in deciding
which investment package to advance. The AA is not intended
to make that decision for decision makers, but, for all of the
factors considered, including ridership, to reveal whether
there are any significant adverse impacts, what other impacts
might be, and how the impacts could be avoided or mitigated.
In this way, the environmental document helps the decision
makers reach informed decisions.
Ridership estimates used throughout the AA and subsequent
analyses are based on industry standards and technical
modeling. Ridership information and analysis is provided in AA
17 Chapters 4 through 9. The ridership technical details, results
and methodology are provided in the AA’s Transportation
Technical Report (July 2017).
Projected ridership and cost per trip are discussed in AA
Chapters 4 through 8. The anticipated cost per trip varies by
corridor alternative and by the combined corridors used to
create the investment package alternatives.
Standard ridership analyses show that riders typically will walk
farther for the type of BRT service provided by EmX than for
regular bus service. Stations are typically 1/3 mile apart, which
the average person can walk in less than 10 minutes.
LTD and the City believe that the AA addresses ridership issues
adequately.
Exhibit 5
Page 54 of 290
Comment Response
Topic # #
The consideration of tradeoffs will be made by the LTD and
City decision makers when selecting the preferred package of
investments.
Exhibit 5
Page 55 of 290
Appendix E: Original Comment Letters, Forms and Emails
Comments received include letters and emails submitted to LTD or the City of Eugene, comment forms
submitted at public events, and oral testimony given at the October 21, 2019 public hearing held jointly
by the LTD Board of Directors and the Eugene City Council. Comments are ordered chronologically.
Exhibit 5
Page 56 of 290
Comment Letter Number: 1
questions@movingahead.org
From: Rob Zako <robzako@gmail.com> on behalf of Rob Zako <rob@best-oregon.org>

Sent: Monday, November 4, 2019 3:13 PM
To: MovingAhead
Subject: Fwd: Please distribute BESTs feedback on MovingAhead to Sounding Board and Oversight
Committee
Attachments: BEST - LTD MovingAhead 2019-05-13.pdf; Untitled attachment 00013.html;
BEST_Logo_Horizontal-188x75.png; Untitled attachment 00016.html
Resending during the MovingAhead public comment period to ensure the following — in particular, BEST’s 2‐page
memo of questions — is part of the public record…
From: Rob Zako <rob@best-oregon.org>

Subject: Please distribute BESTs feedback on MovingAhead to Sounding Board and Oversight
Committee
Date: May 13, 2019 at 10:42:06 AM PDT
To: MovingAheadProject <MovingAheadProject@ltd.org>
Cc: Aurora Jackson <Aurora.Jackson@ltd.org>, Mark Johnson <mark.johnson@ltd.org>, Tom Schwetz
<Tom.Schwetz@ltd.org>, Andrew Martin <Andrew.Martin@ltd.org>, MEDARY Sarah J <SMedary@eugene-
or.gov>, RODRIGUES Matt J <MRodrigues@eugene-or.gov>, INERFELD Rob <RInerfeld@eugene-or.gov>,
HENRY Chris C <CHenry@eugene-or.gov>, RICHARDSON Brian J <BRichardson@eugene-or.gov>, Jeanne
Lawson <jeanne@jla.us.com>, Adrienne DeDona <Adrienne@jla.us.com>, Mike Eyster
<salsamike@comcast.net>, Marianne Nolte <marianne@best-oregon.org>
Dear MovingAhead team,
As there is no public comment opportunity at the MovingAhead Sounding Board meeting this evening, could you please
email the attached 2‐page memo to members in advance? Regardless, this afternoon BEST will bring printed copies for
Sounding Board members to have.
In addition, could you please include the memo as part of the packet of materials for the Oversight Committee meeting
next week? During public comments then, BEST will summarize our questions and planned timeline.
As we have suggested previously and we outline in more detail in the attached memo, BEST does not yet have any
consensus recommendations on MovingAhead alternatives. Rather we have identified ten major areas where we still
have questions. We also note the review recently conducting by CSA Planning in Medford.
In the coming months, we look forward to the project team assisting us obtain answers to these questions, thereby
enabling BEST to provide informed recommendations, we hope in time for the public hearing planned for this fall.
Thank you for your assistance.
Best wishes,
Rob
Exhibit 5
Page 57 of 290
Board of Directors May 13, 2019
Jon Belcher
Michael DeLuise From: Better Eugene-Springfield Transportation
Tiffany Edwards
Mike Eyster To: MovingAhead Oversight Committee
Kevin Gilbride
Sophie McGinley
Cc: MovingAhead Sounding Board
Michele O’Leary
Bob Passaro
Brett Rowlett
Re: Feedback on MovingAhead
Rob Zako
Board of Advisors We appreciate the efforts of the City of Eugene and Lane Transit District to study potential
John Allcott multimodal capital investments along five major corridors.
Susan Ban
Bob Beals But at this time, we have not had all the information we need to inform our own careful
Terry Beyer discussions to develop recommendations on the pros and cons of different alternatives.
Alexis Biddle
Shawn Boles
Julie Daniel
Instead, here we share our open questions. We also outline our timeline that will enable us
Rick Duncan and our partners to develop such consensus recommendations, we hope in time for the
Tim Duy MovingAhead public hearing planned for this fall.
Emily Eng
Karmen Fore
David Funk
Gerry Gaydos
Questions
Beth Gerot BEST is looking for answers to several questions to assist us in our deliberations:
George Grier
Eric Gunderson 1. Why: Why might the community pursue expensive investments along each of five
Pat Hocken
corridors? What is the specific need, challenge or opportunity for each corridor of a
Richard Hughes
Josh Kashinsky sufficient magnitude to justify investments of tens of millions of dollars? Are these
Kaarin Knudson needs identified in existing plans? Is an important need to build out the Frequent
Shane MacRhodes Transit Network? Or is one of the desired outcomes of the MovingAhead process to
Sarah Mazze
determine what needs the community sees?
Terry McDonald
Matt McRae
DeLeesa Meashintubby
2. Alternatives: Are EmX and enhanced corridor distinct alternatives, in particular, using
Tom Mulhern different vehicles and/or kinds of stations/stops? If so, what kinds of vehicles and
Walt Norblad stations/stops would enhanced corridor use? Or is enhanced corridor a kind of “EmX
Mark Pangborn Lite,” using branded EmX buses and stations, but perhaps running in mixed traffic?
Brittany Quick-Warner
Matt Roberts 3. Routing: Recently, Transit Tomorrow suggested that transit service to Bethel not
Seth Sadofsky
Marc Schlossberg
follow Highway 99 all the way out to Barger but rather turn west into residential areas
Carmel Snyder somewhat south of there. Moreover, Transit Tomorrow suggested consolidating routes
Jean Tate in south Eugene, in particular, to eliminate service along Oak/Pearl to Amazon Station.
Kari Turner Do these proposed service changes affect the MovingAhead alternatives analysis that
Jenny Ulum
Carmen Urbina
assumes different routing from Transit Tomorrow? If so, how?
Stefano Viggiano
Sue Wolling 4. Frequency: Recently, Transit Tomorrow concluded it doesn’t make sense to provide
service more frequently than every 15 minutes—except on the EmX segment past the
UO. But the MovingAhead alternatives analysis assumes that the four EmX alternatives
would provide service every 10 minutes. How realistic is that assumption, hence how
valid the comparisons between alternatives?
Better Eugene-Springfield Transportation • PO Box 773, Eugene, OR 97440 • 541-343-5201

info@best-oregon.org • www.best-oregon.org • www.facebook.com/BetterEugeneSpringfieldTransportation
Bringing people together to promote transportation options, safe streets, and walkable neighborhoods.
BEST is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. Contributions are tax-deductible to the extent the law allows. Tax ID #42-1661720.
Exhibit 5
Page 58 of 290
5. Reconstruction: A significant cost of EmX has been to reconstruct right-of-way to replace asphalt with
concrete. Is such reconstruction necessary only for EmX vehicles? Or would, for example, service every
15 minutes with regular 60-foot articulated buses similarly demand right-of-way reconstruction at some
point? If so, would that mean that the some or all of the “no build” alternatives would actually require
significant right-of-way reconstruction under a Transit Tomorrow scenario with more frequent service?
6. Timeline: What major steps will need to be undertaken in order to construct one or more corridors
within MovingAhead’s 10-year timeframe?
7. Capital Funding: What are potential federal and state funding sources for capital costs? How much
funding is likely to be available? What matching requirements are there? What existing or potentially
new local funding sources could or would be needed for capital costs? Given federal matching
requirements, how feasible would it be to build some corridors incrementally using partly local funding?
8. Operating Funding: Assuming they were already paid for and completed, which of the build alternatives
could LTD afford to operate using operating revenues available today? What about in 2021 after the
Transit Tomorrow preferred scenario is put into effect? If there isn’t sufficient operating funding today,
what are potential increased or new federal, state or local sources in the future?
9. Regional Priorities: In addition to the five MovingAhead corridors, the region is also looking to make
multimodal investments in at least three others: a) Eugene’s Franklin Boulevard Transformation,
b) Springfield’s New Franklin Boulevard Phase 2, and c) Springfield’s Main Street. Realistically, of these
eight corridors how many could get funding and constructed in the next ten years? Which corridors are
the highest priorities? Who decides when and how?
10. Strategic Plan: How do the potential MovingAhead investments, and more broadly the region’s potential
multimodal investments, fit into LTD’s and/or its partners 10-year strategic plan?
11. CSA Planning: Recently, a Medford-based consulting firm conducted a review of the MovingAhead
alternatives analysis. What is the project team’s response to this review?
Timeline
BEST is a broad coalition of community leaders and interests. We believe we are better when we speak and
work together. We educate the public and ourselves. We bring together the right people to develop consensus
solutions. We partner with other groups to work towards shared goals.
This summer we are planning our own process with some key partners to educate ourselves, to seek answers
to questions, to discuss priorities and concerns, and we hope to forge consensus recommendations.
Our Transportation Options Coordinator, who is also a graduate student in the UO School of Planning, Public
Policy, and Management, will be doing an internship with us to organize these discussions. We are still
working out details. One option is to convene six community conversations, say, two engaging with
community leaders focused on each of the three parts of the triple bottom line of sustainability: economic
prosperity, social equity, and a healthy environment. We hope your staff will provide assistance in answering
the questions summarized above and others that arise.
Note that BEST has experience conducting such discussions successfully. In early 2014, BEST convened a
couple dozen community conversations around the importance of transit.1 And more recently, we convened
a smaller number of Transit Tomorrow leading to our recommendations on that effort.
BEST looks forward to speaking with our partners and sharing our findings, we hope in time for a
MovingAhead public hearing in Fall 2019.
1 Full community conversations report available at best-oregon.org/ccreport.
Exhibit 5
Page 59 of 290
Andrew Martin
From: Jan Moore <bluztime@yahoo.com>

Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 2:34 PM
To: questions@movingahead.org
Subject: MovingAhead Website Contact Form Message
From: Jan Moore <bluztime@yahoo.com>
Message:
I have noticed that LTD has continued to shrink the area its buses cover. Unless a person lives, works, and recreates in
specific areas, LTD's service is not helpful.
I live off S Willamette Street and would have to walk down AND BACK UP the very steep hill leading up to Spencer Butte
in order to take advantage of transportation from LTD. At my advanced age, that is not a viable option for me.
Therefore, bus service from LTD is of little or no use to me. I would like to be able to utilize this resource which
conserves energy and helps the environment, but the more you limit LTD's service area, the less likely I will be able to do
so.
Please quit cutting routes and stops! Please try to cover more area, even if less frequently!
Thank you.
Relevant Corridors:
30th Avenue/LCC, Highway 99, Coburg Road, MLK Jr. Boulevard, River Road
Contact Options:
I would like to receive email updates
Exhibit 5
Page 60 of 290
Andrew Martin

Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 4:16 PM
To: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager; Steven Yett; Carl Yeh; Don Nordin;
Emily Secord; Joshua Skov; Caitlin Vargas; Kate Reid
Cc: MEDARY Sarah J; RODRIGUES Matt J; INERFELD Rob; HENRY Chris C; HARDING Terri L;
RICHARDSON Brian J; Aurora Jackson; Mark Johnson; Tom Schwetz; Andrew Martin;
Theresa Brand; Pat Walsh; Mike Eyster; Marianne Nolte
Subject: [External Sender] Start with WHY - MovingAhead joint work session on 7/15
Attachments: BEST - LTD MovingAhead 2019-05-13.pdf; ATT00001.htm;
BEST_Logo_Horizontal-188x75.png; ATT00002.htm
Dear Eugene Mayor & City Council and LTD Board of Directors,
The agenda item summary for your MovingAhead joint work session on Monday, July 15th, begins:
The City of Eugene and Lane Transit District (LTD), 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. …
But we suggest that the key policy question is not HOW but rather WHY.
Our community faces many pressing needs, including public safety, schools, homelessness, parks and libraries,
all competing for limited taxpayer funding,. Moreover, funding for MovingAhead projects has not yet been
identified, and it is unclear whether or how much would come from federal or state sources. Thus it is essential
for you to clearly understand the reasons to invest, and to explain to the public why spending taxpayer monies is
worthwhile.
Fortunately, the reasons for making such investments are close at hand and are things the community has long
discussed and included in existing plans: Envision Eugene, Central Lane RTP, Eugene TSP, Eugene Vision
Zero Action Plan, LTD Long-Range Transit Plan, etc.
Such reasons include:
 Safety: Protect the lives of especially people walking and bicycling along busy corridors … by
providing separated bike lanes and sidewalks, signalized pedestrian crossings, etc.
 Affordability: Reduce LTD’s cost per rider to provide transit service … and also enable more
households struggling to make ends meet to save money by reducing the need for a car costing roughly
$6,000 per year to own and operate.
 Compact Development: Support significantly more intense mixed-use, transit-oriented development …
in line with Envision Eugene pillar to “promote compact urban development and efficient transportation
options” … in order to make possible Eugene’s plan for growth.
 Traffic Congestion / Climate Action: Increasing transit ridership … by making service more reliable,
frequent and fast … in order to reduce traffic congestion and to fight climate change.
As you move towards making final decisions on which investments to pursue, BEST urges you to have an
honest discussion about what reasons are compelling enough to justify a significant investment of taxpayer
monies. Then we suggest that how, where and what to invest will become more clear.
Exhibit 5
Page 61 of 290
Best wishes,
Rob
P.S. FYI, in order to be more informed, in May BEST submitted 11 detailed questions to the MovingAhead
project management team, starting with the question of why. See attached.
Exhibit 5
Page 62 of 290
Board of Directors May 13, 2019
Jon Belcher
Tiffany Edwards
Mike Eyster To: MovingAhead Oversight Committee
Kevin Gilbride
Sophie McGinley
Cc: MovingAhead Sounding Board
Michele O’Leary
Bob Passaro
Brett Rowlett
Re: Feedback on MovingAhead
Rob Zako
Board of Advisors We appreciate the efforts of the City of Eugene and Lane Transit District to study potential
John Allcott multimodal capital investments along five major corridors.
Susan Ban
Bob Beals But at this time, we have not had all the information we need to inform our own careful
Terry Beyer discussions to develop recommendations on the pros and cons of different alternatives.
Alexis Biddle
Shawn Boles
Julie Daniel
Instead, here we share our open questions. We also outline our timeline that will enable us
Rick Duncan and our partners to develop such consensus recommendations, we hope in time for the
Tim Duy MovingAhead public hearing planned for this fall.
Emily Eng
Karmen Fore
David Funk
Gerry Gaydos
Questions
Beth Gerot BEST is looking for answers to several questions to assist us in our deliberations:
George Grier
Eric Gunderson 1. Why: Why might the community pursue expensive investments along each of five
Pat Hocken
corridors? What is the specific need, challenge or opportunity for each corridor of a
Richard Hughes
Josh Kashinsky sufficient magnitude to justify investments of tens of millions of dollars? Are these
Kaarin Knudson needs identified in existing plans? Is an important need to build out the Frequent
Shane MacRhodes Transit Network? Or is one of the desired outcomes of the MovingAhead process to
Sarah Mazze
determine what needs the community sees?
Terry McDonald
Matt McRae
2. Alternatives: Are EmX and enhanced corridor distinct alternatives, in particular, using
Tom Mulhern different vehicles and/or kinds of stations/stops? If so, what kinds of vehicles and
Walt Norblad stations/stops would enhanced corridor use? Or is enhanced corridor a kind of “EmX
Mark Pangborn Lite,” using branded EmX buses and stations, but perhaps running in mixed traffic?
Matt Roberts 3. Routing: Recently, Transit Tomorrow suggested that transit service to Bethel not
Seth Sadofsky
Marc Schlossberg
follow Highway 99 all the way out to Barger but rather turn west into residential areas
Carmel Snyder somewhat south of there. Moreover, Transit Tomorrow suggested consolidating routes
Jean Tate in south Eugene, in particular, to eliminate service along Oak/Pearl to Amazon Station.
Kari Turner Do these proposed service changes affect the MovingAhead alternatives analysis that
Jenny Ulum
Carmen Urbina
assumes different routing from Transit Tomorrow? If so, how?
Stefano Viggiano
Sue Wolling 4. Frequency: Recently, Transit Tomorrow concluded it doesn’t make sense to provide
service more frequently than every 15 minutes—except on the EmX segment past the
UO. But the MovingAhead alternatives analysis assumes that the four EmX alternatives
would provide service every 10 minutes. How realistic is that assumption, hence how
valid the comparisons between alternatives?

Bringing people together to promote transportation options, safe streets, and walkable neighborhoods.
Exhibit 5
Page 63 of 290
5. Reconstruction: A significant cost of EmX has been to reconstruct right-of-way to replace asphalt with
concrete. Is such reconstruction necessary only for EmX vehicles? Or would, for example, service every
15 minutes with regular 60-foot articulated buses similarly demand right-of-way reconstruction at some
point? If so, would that mean that the some or all of the “no build” alternatives would actually require
significant right-of-way reconstruction under a Transit Tomorrow scenario with more frequent service?
6. Timeline: What major steps will need to be undertaken in order to construct one or more corridors
within MovingAhead’s 10-year timeframe?
7. Capital Funding: What are potential federal and state funding sources for capital costs? How much
funding is likely to be available? What matching requirements are there? What existing or potentially
new local funding sources could or would be needed for capital costs? Given federal matching
requirements, how feasible would it be to build some corridors incrementally using partly local funding?
8. Operating Funding: Assuming they were already paid for and completed, which of the build alternatives
could LTD afford to operate using operating revenues available today? What about in 2021 after the
Transit Tomorrow preferred scenario is put into effect? If there isn’t sufficient operating funding today,
what are potential increased or new federal, state or local sources in the future?
9. Regional Priorities: In addition to the five MovingAhead corridors, the region is also looking to make
multimodal investments in at least three others: a) Eugene’s Franklin Boulevard Transformation,
b) Springfield’s New Franklin Boulevard Phase 2, and c) Springfield’s Main Street. Realistically, of these
eight corridors how many could get funding and constructed in the next ten years? Which corridors are
the highest priorities? Who decides when and how?
10. Strategic Plan: How do the potential MovingAhead investments, and more broadly the region’s potential
multimodal investments, fit into LTD’s and/or its partners 10-year strategic plan?
11. CSA Planning: Recently, a Medford-based consulting firm conducted a review of the MovingAhead
alternatives analysis. What is the project team’s response to this review?
Timeline
BEST is a broad coalition of community leaders and interests. We believe we are better when we speak and
work together. We educate the public and ourselves. We bring together the right people to develop consensus
solutions. We partner with other groups to work towards shared goals.
This summer we are planning our own process with some key partners to educate ourselves, to seek answers
to questions, to discuss priorities and concerns, and we hope to forge consensus recommendations.
Our Transportation Options Coordinator, who is also a graduate student in the UO School of Planning, Public
Policy, and Management, will be doing an internship with us to organize these discussions. We are still
working out details. One option is to convene six community conversations, say, two engaging with
community leaders focused on each of the three parts of the triple bottom line of sustainability: economic
prosperity, social equity, and a healthy environment. We hope your staff will provide assistance in answering
the questions summarized above and others that arise.
Note that BEST has experience conducting such discussions successfully. In early 2014, BEST convened a
couple dozen community conversations around the importance of transit.1 And more recently, we convened
a smaller number of Transit Tomorrow leading to our recommendations on that effort.
BEST looks forward to speaking with our partners and sharing our findings, we hope in time for a
MovingAhead public hearing in Fall 2019.
1 Full community conversations report available at best-oregon.org/ccreport.
Exhibit 5
Page 64 of 290
Andrew Martin
From: David Davini <DavidD@giustina.com>

Sent: Friday, July 12, 2019 1:38 PM
To: lvinis@eugene-or.gov; esemple@eugene-or.gov; btaylor@eugene-or.gov;
azelenka@eugene-or.gov; jyeh@eugene-or.gov; mclark@eugene-or.gov;
gevans@eugene-or.gov; csyrett@eugene-or.gov; cpryor@eugene-or.gov; Steven Yett;
Carl Yeh; Don Nordin; Emily Secord; Joshua Skov; Caitlin Vargas; Kate Reid; Aurora
Jackson; Jon.r.ruiz@ci.eugene.or.us; Chris.Henry@eugene-or.gov; Andrew Martin
Subject: [External Sender] Moving Aheadjulum@ulum.com
Attachments: Infographic_07_12_19.pdf
Greetings Mayor, Councilors and LTD Board:
In February you received a nine‐page report from CSA Planning [note: report dated March 7, 2019 attached to this

comment was not originally included in the communication, but was added for clarity], a Medford‐
based consulting firm, raising numerous concerns about the Moving Ahead Alternatives Analysis. We have boiled those
concerns down to a one‐page infographic with a written narrative to accompany it (attached). Even a cursory glance at
the infographic shows that the most significant investment alternatives do not pass the cost‐benefit test. The best
alternative, is one that isn’t even being presented, which is no‐build.
Our intent is not to diminish LTD’s importance to our community or to undervalue the need to plan for a more
sustainable future. We need LTD and the services it provides. But we should not ignore the data which clearly indicate
new EMX lines are not necessary to meet future transit demands. We urge you not to rush a decision or commit to a
course of action that will have expensive consequences for the community for generations to come. It’s one thing to
plan responsibly for the future; it’s another to be so far out ahead that when the future finally arrives we discover our
ambitious plans no longer make sense. Our children will pay the tab for choices we make today. Please be sure all
questions are thoroughly and accurately answered to the public’s satisfaction before advancing any options and
investing any further resources.
Thank you.
David Davini
G Group, LLC
PO Box 529 | Eugene, OR 97440
541.485.1500 | Davidd@ggroup.com
Exhibit 5
Page 65 of 290
Moving Ahead Cost-Benefit
Comparison
Enhanced Package A EmX
Package Options Corridor Alternative
Package A Package B Package C
Package
Risk (systemwide $4.86 (Up 15.2%) $4.73 (up 12%) $4.83 (up 14.4%)
operations ride $4.51 (Up $4.66 (up

Balanced $4.53 (Up $4.86 (Up $4.73 (up $4.83 (up
costs under 50% 6.8%) 10.4%) 7.2%) 15.2%) 12%) 14.4%)
growth ) $4.51 (Up 6.8%) $4.66 (up 10.4%) $4.53 (Up 7.2%)
$223,000,000 $223,000,000 $331,500,000

Local cost (1/2
capital + 20 year $72,000,000 $137,000,000
Balanced $39,000,000 $223,000,000 $223,000,000 $331,500,000
operating) $72,000,000 $137,000,000 $39,000,000
$9,439,186 $7,292,348 $10,962,302

Flexibility (local
cost per obligated $2,345,277 Balanced
$4,981,818 $1,822,430 $9,439,186 $7,292,348 $10,962,302
mile) $2,345,277 $4,981,818 $1,822,430
20 year new 7,780,000 4,140,000
ridership (LTD 7,780,000 11,040,000 4,140,000 15,240,000 15,420,000 26,540,000

forecast + not
decreased LCC EC ) 11,040,000 15,240,000 15,420,000 26,540,000
$7.74 $5.58 $6.18
Operating cost per ($.26) $4.35 ($3.38) $7.74 $5.58 $6.18

Balanced
new net ride
($.26) $4.35 ($3.38)
Legend
Worst/Most Best/Least
Exhibit 5
Page 66 of 290
Is Moving Ahead Risking Falling Behind?
Package A Alternative: This community minded option combines Package A with two additional
investments. Instead of only enhanced corridors, Package A Prime adds an EmX line on River
Road and has enhanced service on Highway 99, Coburg Road, and to Lane Community College.
The LCC/30th Ave EC Corridor “analyzed in Moving Ahead” actually decreases service
frequency to Lane Community College; decrease is the opposite of enhanced at
thesaurus.com. Package A Prime spends more money to increase service to Lane Community
College and assumes it will capture 2/3rds of the ridership of the EmX line. Package A Prime
balances significant transit investment without locking the district into decades of costly
service running EmX lines through 1 ½ miles of rural woodland between Eugene and LCC every
10 minutes, 7 days a week.
Risk: Moving Ahead is projecting millions of additional rides by 2035 without any of the Moving
Ahead additional investments. This baseline ridership assumption ignores the fact that for the
past decade ridership has declined almost every year. Annual ridership peaked in fiscal year
2008-2009 at 11,718,189 trips. Since then, rides have declined by more than 10%, or 1,506,866
rides. If ridership grows at half the rate assumed by Moving Ahead, annual ridership in 2035
will be below the 2008-2009 peak. This means that the cost per ride will be significantly more
expensive and the entire system less efficient than today before adding millions of dollars in
additional operating costs from new EmX lines. If ridership continues to stagnate, Moving
Ahead has the potential to increase systemwide operations costs per ride of 14.4%.
Total Local Cost Over 20 Years: If all EmX lines are built, the Eugene community will pay
$331,500,000 in capital and operating costs for the service (using the 50% local share assumed
in the Moving Ahead analysis). Each new ride will cost Eugene and the people of the District
$12.49.
Flexibility: Each line built as an EmX means committing to running high frequency transit
service for decades with no changes. Enhanced corridors and normal busses with improved
frequencies allow for greater flexibility, such as moving transit service to where it’s desired or
reacting to local conditions as they change. Locking in routes as EmX means less money to
improve other routes even if those routes had greater need. By limiting the number of miles
dedicated to costly and permanent EmX service, other packages create greater flexibility.
Operating Cost Per Ride: On a simple dollars and sense level, the operating cost per ride goes
up dramatically when EmX options are used. Although the federal government may help pay
for the construction, these operating costs are long term contractual obligations. If ridership is
lower than expected or a better route option is found later the people of Eugene will still be
paying for EmX routes with impaired ability to address future needs.
Exhibit 5
Page 67 of 290
Exhibit 5
Page 68 of 290
Exhibit 5
Page 69 of 290
Exhibit 5
Page 70 of 290
Exhibit 5
Page 71 of 290
Exhibit 5
Page 72 of 290
Exhibit 5
Page 73 of 290
Exhibit 5
Page 74 of 290
Exhibit 5
Page 75 of 290
Exhibit 5
Page 76 of 290
Exhibit 5
Page 77 of 290
Exhibit 5
Page 78 of 290
Exhibit 5
Page 79 of 290
Andrew Martin

Sent: Monday, July 29, 2019 12:56 PM
To: HENRY Chris C; INERFELD Rob; HARDING Terri L; Andrew Martin; Tom Schwetz
Cc: Mike Eyster; Jon Belcher; Marianne Nolte
Subject: [External Sender] Re: MovingAhead Discussion with BEST ... and suggestions re
communicating with the public
Dear Chris, Rob I, Andrew & Tom … and we missed you Terri,
Thank you for taking the time to meet with BEST to offer answers to question we have about MovingAhead
and helping us understand the project better.
BEST appreciates the challenges of trying to gather public input on highly complex and technical matters. We
wish to assist the City of Eugene and LTD in communicating effectively with the general public and especially
with policymakers. Thus here we respectfully offer some small suggestions about providing the larger
community with key information:
1) Complete Timeline Graphic: Develop a graphic, with years across the top, showing how the community moves
from original planning to service launch. Divide the timeline into key “chapters.” Mark the points in time when
key decisions were or are expected to be made. Call out specifically was or is to be decided:
 Long-Range Planning: TransPlan, Central Lane RTP, Envision Eugene, Eugene TSP, Long-Range
Transit Plan.
 Alternatives Analysis: MovingAhead
 Project Development: NEPA, Capital Funding, Design Engineering, Construction, Launch
Note that the graphic on the MovingAhead FAQ page has some of these elements, but does not show how we
got here, and is too vague about the future. We think the community wants to see light at the end of the planning
tunnel when we will have better transit, bicycling and walking at some plausible point in the near future: 2020?
2025? 2030? 2035?
2) Mode Spectrum Graphic: Develop a graphic showing the spectrum of mode technologies, from regular bus
service to BRT Gold. Divide the spectrum into distinct realms, in particular, “locally funded” and “eligible for
FTA Small Starts funding.” Show the range considered to be “enhanced corridor” and the range considered to
be “EmX.” Do these ranges of the spectrum overlap, i.e., are there higher-end implementations of “enhanced
corridor” that would count as EmX? Include in the graphic the elements of BRT such as having dedicated lanes,
level boarding, and loading on both sides of the vehicle.
3) Key Corridors vs. FTN vs. Enhanced Corridor / EmX Cheat Sheet: Marianne and I recently reviewed TransPlan,
the Central Lane RTP, Envision Eugene, the Eugene TSP, and the Long-Range Transit Plan. It is not clear
whether “Key Corridors,” the “Frequent Transit Network,” and Enhanced Corridor / EmX infrastructure
investments are the same or different. Here is our rough understanding:
 Key Corridor: This is land use concept of where Envision Eugene plans to see more significant mixed-
use, transit-oriented development.
 Frequent Transit Network: This is a transit service concept, akin to Transit Tomorrow, about where
service is planned to be every 15 minutes or better.
Exhibit 5
Page 80 of 290
 Enhanced Corridor / EmX: This is a transit (and other modes) capital investment concept, about where
to invest tens or hundred of millions of dollars to improve infrastructure.
Developing a cheat sheet showing the differences between these three concepts, and where the community
could conceivably have some but not all three, would be helpful.
Is McVay Highway still part of the FTN with plans to provide 15-minute service, even if it is not included in
Transit Tomorrow’s ridership network?
Is 30th Avenue to LCC a key corridor?
4) Partner with communications specialists: Work with nontechnical communications folks (Brian Richardson,
Theresa Brand, Pat Walsh) to develop key communication materials to ensure that these are communicating
effectively to less technical audiences.
Finally, as we discussed, we would like to circle back in another month or two — certainly before any public
hearing is scheduled.
Best wishes,
Rob
--
Rob Zako
Executive Director
Better Eugene-Springfield Transportation (BEST)
541-343-5201 (home office)
541-606-0931 (mobile)
rob@best-oregon.org
www.best-oregon.org
facebook.com/BetterEugeneSpringfieldTransportation
BEST brings people together to promote transportation options, safe streets, and walkable neighborhoods.
Exhibit 5
Page 81 of 290
Andrew Martin
From: CJ Norris <thebeespoke@outlook.com>

Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 9:44 AM
From: CJ Norris <thebeespoke@outlook.com>
Message:
To the Board of Directors at Lane County Transit District:
I attended the LTD Strategic Planning Meeting on Tuesday August 8th, 2019. This meeting was not listed in the Register‐
Guard, but I had asked at the Information Desk in the morning, and the extremely helpful person there told me it was
indeed being held, so I took the Emx there. It is my belief that I was the only person in attendance at that meeting who
took the LTD Service to that meeting, and in fact, the only person who is a user of LTD services. This was somewhat
surprising to me, or perhaps “dismaying” is a better term.
I had applied for the position of Volunteer Adviser that was advertised on the LTD website in June, but never heard back,
not even a form email telling me “No thanks, we’ll call you, Don’t Call Us!”
The term I heard bandied about during that meeting to describe implementation of the new LTD Service was “Ripping
Off The Bandaid”. Because, in fact, the Plan that has been suggested leaves many areas completely without bus service,
and it was obviously understood that when this Plan is communicated to the bus riding population (Note‐not the people
who designed the Plan, nor any of the people in that meeting) it will, in fact be painful.
Here is what I also heard, “Well, People don’t like change.” My thought was that if this group of people were to find
their cars missing from the parking lot, and be told to just figure it out, they would not be quite so keen on change
either.
This Ivory Tower design has apparently been made with zero input from the very people who use it and depend upon it
to get to our jobs, doctor’s appointments, child care providers, grocery shopping‐every aspect of our lives.
The arrogance and entitlement of this Strategic Planning Group was utterly shameful. In my opinion, which apparently
counts for nothing, no one should have a say about this Plan unless they are a regular user of the Transit System. Why,
indeed, does the building at the Transit Center have a parking lot? It’s a short walk from the Emx.
It should be the goal of the LTD to have the best transit system we can possibly have, designed by people who actually
use it. I can’t imagine taking my vehicle to an auto mechanic who never owned a car. But here we are implementing a
multi‐million dollar Transit plan designed by a bunch of people who don’t use the bus. That makes no sense to me. But
what do I know? I’m just another rider on the bus.
Sincerely,
CJ Norris
thebeespoke@outlook.com
Relevant Corridors:
30th Avenue/LCC, Coburg Road
Contact Options:
Exhibit 5
Page 82 of 290
Andrew Martin

Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 6:54 PM
To: MEDARY Sarah J; RODRIGUES Matt J; INERFELD Rob; HENRY Chris C; HOSTICK Robin A;
HARDING Terri L; Aurora Jackson; Tom Schwetz; Andrew Martin
Cc: Mike Eyster; Marianne Nolte
Subject: [External Sender] Heads Up: BEST efforts re MovingAhead
Dear MovingAhead staff,
On August 19th, BEST received the public email notice of the MovingAhead public hearing on October 21st.
And on August 26th, as you should have received, BEST sent our latest e-newsletter to 1,000+ subscribers
calling attention to this hearing. (See below.)
To our public heads up, I want share with you what BEST is doing:
 Focus groups: Continuing our series of focus groups, with community leaders in both Eugene and
Springfield, seeking to understand transportation challenges and opportunities, and what are community
priorities for investments.
 Meetings with experts: We are continuing to check our understanding with you and other experts,
wanting to make sure we understand the questions being asked, the alternatives, and the implications of
these.
 Review of plans, alternatives analysis, etc.: We are conducting a detailed review of adopted plans and
the details MovingAhead alternatives analysis. We are also looking to work by CSA Planning in
Medford, the detailed review that Yekang Ko's UO GIS class did of Gateway EmX in Spring 2019, and
other sources of information on especially transit investments.
 Internal deliberations: The BEST Transportation Options Committee met two weeks ago to begin
fleshing out our recommendations for MovingAhead. Our Board of Directors will review these on
September 11th. And we have scheduled meetings with the River Road Community Organization, the
Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, the League of Women Voters of Lane County and we expect
others to gain feedback on our evolving draft recommendations.
 Public Testimony: In September 2012, BEST turned out a diverse coalition of 40 people from many
different walks of life to testify to the Eugene City Council in favor of West Eugene EmX. Two days
later the City Council voted 7-1 to proceed with that project. Of course, back then a group called Our
Money Our Transit had mounted a highly visible campaign against West Eugene EmX. The questions
being asked and the players are different today. Nonetheless, we will be working to share our
recommendations with both the Eugene City Council and the LTD Board of Directors. Our
recommendations will likely takes the form of a flashy one-page executive summary / flyer, supported
by a significantly longer memo that analyzes the alternatives and explains why we are recommending
what we are.
As I testified to the LTD Board of Directors last week, we know you have been asking: “What does the
community want?” BEST believe that the answer is clear. The community wants transportation options that are
safe, practical and affordable. (And ideally they don’t want to have to pay much or anything in taxes or right-of-
way for these things.) For transit, that translates to what Jarrett Walker terms “useful transit,” i.e., frequent
service that connects to other frequent service running where many people are or want to be, 7 days and
evenings a week. In short, people want more or less the Frequent Transit Network (FTN). And it is also critical
for people to be able to walk to and from transit stops, with pedestrian safety and connectivity. Bicyclists also
Exhibit 5
Page 83 of 290
want safe options, but perhaps not necessarily solely along the MovingAhead corridors as on the routes
identified in Eugene’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan and that keep bicyclists away from higher speed
motor vehicle traffic.
But our experience has been that when you ask the community — even members of the BEST boards who are
pretty informed — whether they want EmX or enhanced corridor, there is a tendency for community members
to turn the question back on you as staff, with people explaining that they are not transportation experts and that
they look to you to tell them how to better implement the vision outlined in the previous paragraph.
Regardless, BEST is seeking to do our best to do a more technical analysis to link the community’s vision and
goals with the specific mode alternatives under study in MovingAhead. As BEST has limited staff and
resources, we do not presume to have all the answers, or even necessarily to get all the facts straight.
Thus in September we plan to share a draft of our recommendations with you for your technical review,
asking you to check that our facts and understandings are correct.
Please let us know if you have any questions, suggestions or concerns about the work BEST is doing around
MovingAhead.
Best wishes,
Rob
--
Rob Zako
Executive Director
541-343-5201 (home office)
541-606-0931 (mobile)
rob@best-oregon.org
www.best-oregon.org
BEST brings people together to promote transportation options, safe streets, and walkable neighborhoods.
------ Forwarded Message ------

From: Better Eugene-Springfield Transportation (BEST) <info@best-oregon.org>
Subject: [BEST] Where Next for EmX?
Date: August 26, 2019 at 1:34:56 PM PDT
Exhibit 5
Page 84 of 290
Better Eugene-Springfield Transportation
Transportation Options • Safe Streets • Walkable Neighborhoods
DONATE
MOVINGAHEAD
Where Next for EmX?

In 2012, BEST assembled a diverse coalition in support of EmX West.
Today, this newest bus rapid transit line in west Eugene sees an average of
72 boardings per hour per vehicle, getting over 4,000 people each weekday to and
from jobs, schools, shopping, recreation and other activities.
Looking ahead, where might it make sense to invest in additional EmX lines?
A joint public hearing on Monday, October 21, from 7:30 to 9:30 pm, will be your
primary opportunity to tell the Eugene City Council and Lane Transit District Board of
Directors which investments in better transportation you support.
Exhibit 5
Page 85 of 290
On Sunday, September 17, LTD launched the third corridor of EmX service in west Eugene along with several
route changes, making travel into and out of west Eugene more accessible, convenient and efficient.
The City of Eugene is working with Lane Transit District on an effort

called MovingAhead to look at potential investments along five transportation
corridors:
 Highway 99
 River Road
 Coburg Road
 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd.
 30th Avenue to Lane Community College
(In addition, the City of Springfield is working with LTD and the Oregon Department of
Transportation to look at potential investments along Main Street.)
Exhibit 5
Page 86 of 290
MovingAhead Enhanced Corridor Alternatives Overview.
For each corridor, three alternatives are being considered:
 No Build, a reference point to measure the relative benefits, costs and impacts
of the build alternatives. Under the No Build option, the City and LTD would
make only changes that are already planned as part of other projects.
 Enhanced Corridor, a new concept for the Eugene-Springfield region intended
to improve safety, access and transit service without requiring major capital
investments.
 EmX, short for Emerald Express, LTD’s branded bus rapid transit (BRT)
service. EmX currently operates between the Gateway area and west Eugene
serving downtown Springfield, the University of Oregon, and downtown
Eugene.
Exhibit 5
Page 87 of 290
Although others are possible, five packages of investments are suggested:
MovingAhead suggested packages of investments.
To learn what kinds of investments the community supports, BEST has been listening
to different perspectives in small, informal conversations. To participate in one of
these, please contact Marianne Nolte at marianne@best-oregon.org.
BEST has also been reviewing plans, including Envision Eugene, the Eugene 2035
Transportation System Plan (TSP), and LTD’s Long-Range Transit Plan.
Finally, BEST has been reviewing the detailed MovingAhead Alternatives Analysis
Report.
Based on all this work, we are developing our own recommendations. In September,
we will share these with our partners to seek their feedback. In October, we will share
refined recommendations with the public and at the public hearing on October 21.
For now, we want to hear which investments you support — and why.
Help us spread the word. Share with friends.
Exhibit 5
Page 88 of 290
Facebook
Tweet
Forward
Copyright © 2019 Better Eugene-Springfield Transportation (BEST), All rights reserved.

You are receiving this email because you have expressed an interest in our work. BEST is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that brings people together to
promote transportation options, safe streets, and walkable neighborhoods. We believe we are better when we speak and act together, and that
better transportation is good for the economy, the well being of people, and the environment.
Our mailing address is:

PO Box 773
Eugene, OR 97440
Add us to your address book
Exhibit 5
Page 89 of 290
Exhibit 5
Page 90 of 290
Andrew Martin
From: devon gregory <devong923@gmail.com>

Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2019 4:10 PM
Message:
Do you the city of Eugene can find out how much it will it cost for MLK Jr. boulevard route, And if there is enough to
cover the cost of the route. Is there a way for Springfield and Eugene and to those who fund the route to cover the cost
of the route. What if MovingAhead dose not to move forward without MLK Jr. boulevard being left out of the picture,
And they highly recommend MLK Jr. boulevard to be the 5th route, And not VRC corridor route will you people make a
deal with the MovingAhead team. You need to make smart choices to make the cities a safer place for everyone that
including the EMX busses. I understand how hard work you people are doing for the cities of Eugene and Springfield of
Oregon I know how hard working you people are doing so do your best I am proud of you city of Eugene. I hope you
people understand that I was wishing for MLK Jr. boulevard route to be the 5th route. For that I understand the
complexity of transportation projects. I would like to thank all of you for taking the time to listen to this comment.
Relevant Corridors:
MLK Jr. Boulevard
Contact Options:
Exhibit 5
Page 91 of 290
Andrew Martin

Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 6:40 PM
Message:
Should the resources Springfield dose not have, could it be the funding for the MLK Jr boulevard route after it's
approval. If there is, can you reconsider support for MLK Jr. boulevard route? Could you take the time to find out how
much it will cost for the route, thank you so much, I mean it.
Relevant Corridors:
MLK Jr. Boulevard
Contact Options:
I would like a response, I would like to receive email updates
Exhibit 5
Page 92 of 290
Andrew Martin
From: lisa.grissell@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 11:35 AM
Subject: Emx
Do it once and do it right from the start. We need to consider the future and not just put more money into a temporary
solution. It needs to have a dedicated lane to make it efficient and highly useable. The inconvenience now will be worth
it in the long run.
Thanks,
Dee and Lisa Grissell
Sent from my iPad
Exhibit 5
Page 93 of 290
Andrew Martin
From: Deborah Bernhard <dbernhard49@gmail.com>

Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 4:03 PM
Subject: Package C
Im in suport of EMX on River Rd
Fast and efficient
Not obstructing traffic
A positive move toward more public transportation Do not want it on the smaller side streets or in neighborhoods
where it may not be utilized Lets do River Road first and see how that goes Thanks
Sent from my iPhone
Exhibit 5
Page 94 of 290
Andrew Martin

Sent: Friday, September 20, 2019 12:43 PM
Message:
I am going to go with package C option. because I think it's better for the community and make it a great investment for
everyone. I think it could be better for the state of OREGON. thank you very much. I hope you have a great day.
Relevant Corridors:
Contact Options:
Exhibit 5
Page 95 of 290
From: Kara Schnoes <karaschnoes@gmail.com>

Sent: Sunday, October 6, 2019 9:47 PM
Subject: MovingAhead: Coburg Road
Hello!
I take the bus down Coburg or Drive down Coburg from Downtown to Chad drive as part of my daily commute. I also like
to cycle and run occasionally instead of driving or taking the bus.
Coburg is NOT a fun road for bikers or pedestrians, but it is far the most efficient by distance and time way to get from
downtown or South Eugene to that part of the city. It is a SHAME that pedestrians and cyclists have to take the long way,
going down the I‐5 path, winding through neighborhoods, and going the long way to get over the river, under 105, etc.
Coburg is a crucial underpass under 105 and the beltline. Either make neighborhood greenway type options for doing
these things (pedestrian and bike friendly tunnels or bridges) or make Coburg way more safe and efficient.
Finally, as a driver, there are WAY too many little driveways and parking lots, businesses, all dumping in and out of
Coburg ‐ mini strip malls. These businesses should have only one driveway each and/or be exclusively using the side
streets. Coburg is a major thoroughfare and should be organized as such.
Thanks,
Kara Schnoes
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
karaschnoes@gmail.com
631‐415‐3401
Exhibit 5
Page 96 of 290
From: Devon Gregory <devong923@gmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 5:41 PM
Subject: Investment package options
I want to support package C option to be a smart option, because it would be good for everyone and would be a good
investment for the community, and will create great jobs ,and to be better for the environment. Please make a right
choice for the economy and for the people with disabilities,and for that i thank you very much. I hope you have a great
day.
Exhibit 5
Page 97 of 290
Andrew Martin
From: Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com>

Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 2:05 PM
To: Andrew Martin
Subject: Re: [External Sender] Re: FW: Please provide links to the actual, updated investment
packages
Got it. -- Paul

_________________
Accredited Earth Advantage
Sustainable Homes Professional
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 1:57 PM Andrew Martin <Andrew.Martin@ltd.org> wrote:

Hi Paul,
One clarification that was a little unclear in my prior email. The Highway 99 Enhanced Corridor Alternative
does propose capital improvements, but not within the JWN boundaries.
- Andrew
Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
________________________________
From: Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com>
To: Andrew Martin
Subject: Re: [External Sender] Re: FW: Please provide links to the actual, updated investment packages
Got it … Thanks! -- Paul

_________________
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 1:11 PM Andrew Martin

<Andrew.Martin@ltd.org<mailto:Andrew.Martin@ltd.org>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
The Highway 99 EmX Alternative is not proposed to enter the boundaries of the Jefferson Westside
Neighborhood. As proposed, the EmX Alternative would run along the Business Access and Transit (BAT)
lanes on 6th and 7th Avenues. The Enhanced Corridor Alternative would run on 11th and 13th Avenues, but
no capital improvements are proposed under that alternative. The project has published a Definition of
Alternatives<https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.movingahead.org%
2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F09%2F28-CH2M-et-al-
2016.pdf&data=02%7C01%7CAndrew.Martin%40ltd.org%7C89ba61e4abfd470557f108d75278110f%7C0399
c6c9842c4bb98fe3b527450577e8%7C0%7C1%7C637068547944258615&sdata=SJ7fpx0dVP1u%2Bp3eAZn
9rrHwbAqSAWljjj3TVdzeB6A%3D&reserved=0> which contains the details of proposed changes. The
Exhibit 5
Page 98 of 290
Executive
Summary<https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.movingahead.org%2F
wp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F09%2FLTD-Moving-Ahead-Exec-Summary-FINAL-2018-09-
05.pdf&data=02%7C01%7CAndrew.Martin%40ltd.org%7C89ba61e4abfd470557f108d75278110f%7C0399c6
c9842c4bb98fe3b527450577e8%7C0%7C1%7C637068547944268613&sdata=q35qAKacRBoyBfwWYDzGf
h2hgNlbqCbab6kdRY3rSDo%3D&reserved=0> also has good maps that show at a high level where different
investments are proposed for each alternative.
Thanks,
Andrew Martin
Development Planner
P: 541-682-6116
Contact us at
LTD.org<https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ltd.org%2Fcontactus.ht
ml&data=02%7C01%7CAndrew.Martin%40ltd.org%7C89ba61e4abfd470557f108d75278110f%7C0399c6c98
42c4bb98fe3b527450577e8%7C0%7C1%7C637068547944268613&sdata=zM3UQ8952HvjRLKXwV5rR2y
NYLgmOY69pJhjJjF%2F1Vk%3D&reserved=0>
From: Paul Conte [mailto:paul.t.conte@gmail.com<mailto:paul.t.conte@gmail.com>]

To: Andrew Martin <Andrew.Martin@ltd.org<mailto:Andrew.Martin@ltd.org>>
Subject: [External Sender] Re: FW: Please provide links to the actual, updated investment packages
Hi Andrew,
That document covers a great deal. I'd like to see what the "Fall Hearing" has as the alignments and
improvements for the two packages ("E" and "EmX") under "Highway 99." My specific interest is to verify
what may be included for alignments that run through the JWN neighborhood.
Thanks!
-- Paul
_________________
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:05 PM Andrew Martin

<Andrew.Martin@ltd.org<mailto:Andrew.Martin@ltd.org>> wrote:
Hi Paul,
I was forwarded your correspondence with the MovingAhead project’s general email box. I believe what you
are looking for is our Refined Investment Package Options for Fall 2019 Public Hearing report, which is linked
below. This document outlines the process leading up to the public hearing and also contains specific
information about each of the packages. Please let me know if you need additional information and I will try to
get it to you.
Exhibit 5
Page 99 of 290
http://www.movingahead.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Refined-Investment-Package-Options-for-Public-
Hearing-Report-
October.pdf<https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.movingahead.org%
2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F10%2FRefined-Investment-Package-Options-for-Public-Hearing-
Report-
October.pdf&data=02%7C01%7CAndrew.Martin%40ltd.org%7C89ba61e4abfd470557f108d75278110f%7C0
399c6c9842c4bb98fe3b527450577e8%7C0%7C1%7C637068547944278612&sdata=ot%2FkfGpz3ik8QyWB
KLQ9VSRjqm1AfS%2BBa2ZpyIq%2FTF4%3D&reserved=0>
Thanks,
Andrew Martin
Development Planner
P: 541-682-6116
Contact us at
LTD.org<https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ltd.org%2Fcontactus.ht
ml&data=02%7C01%7CAndrew.Martin%40ltd.org%7C89ba61e4abfd470557f108d75278110f%7C0399c6c98
42c4bb98fe3b527450577e8%7C0%7C1%7C637068547944278612&sdata=GxvHapgmo0bU8rAauRVXo0HIf
3zgBV6DgspRoXD6KgY%3D&reserved=0>
From: Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com<mailto:paul.t.conte@gmail.com>>

Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 6:50 PM
To: questions@movingahead.org<mailto:questions@movingahead.org>
Subject: Re: Please provide links to the actual, updated investment packages
Thanks. Could you please identify which document(s) correspond to the public hearing matrix. I find older,
incomplete documents.
-- Paul
_________________
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 2:07 PM <questions@movingahead.org<mailto:questions@movingahead.org>> wrote:

Hi Paul,
Thanks for your email. If you visit the project website and look on the Project Library page you can find the
technical reports and the executive summary Please let me know if you still don’t find what you are looking
for.
Thanks!
Jaye Cromwell
Public Involvement Specialist
JLA Public Involvement
From: Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com<mailto:paul.t.conte@gmail.com>>
Exhibit 5
Page 100 of 290
To: questions@movingahead.org<mailto:questions@movingahead.org>
Subject: Please provide links to the actual, updated investment packages
The matrix image doesn't provide links. I'm sure the updated packages are somewhere on the website, but I
didn't find them.
Thank you
Paul Conte
_________________
Exhibit 5
Page 101 of 290
From: Gay Morgan <gmorgan294@gmail.com>

Subject: Route 27
I would use the bus every day if the bus schedule was convenient for me. Please, please bring back hourly service on
Route 27 Fairmount.
Gay Morgan
Exhibit 5
Page 102 of 290
Andrew Martin
From: Andrew Martin

To: 'metam@comcast.net'
Cc: MovingAheadProject
Subject: RE: Moving Ahead - Streets and Places Reimagined - Transportation Investment
Packages for City of Eugene
Attachments: LTD Moving Ahead Investment Packages Update V2 FINAL.PDF
Dear Meta Maxwell,
Thank you for reaching out and contacting us. The intent of our letter was to reach out and ensure that all potentially
impacted property owners were aware of the upcoming public hearing and to provide contact information for project
staff in the event that you needed more information about the project.
Since the publication of the MovingAhead Alternatives Analysis in September 2018, staff have provided several updates
to City Council and LTD’s Board of Directors, held five in‐person open houses and two online open houses during two
distinct comment periods, and given updates to many community groups. Additionally, project materials are regularly
updated on our website (http://www.movingahead.org).
At the upcoming public hearing, Eugene City Council and LTD’s Board of Directors will hear input from the public on a set
of refined investment packages (see below). The range of investment packages is intended to illustrate five possible sets
of investments. Next year, Eugene City Council and LTD’s Board of Directors will adopt a single investment package as
their preferred package. I encourage you to view some of the links below to become more familiar with the potential
benefits and impacts of the various investment packages. I have also attached a handout with information about the
packages.
Proposed Investment Packages
Corridor
30th Avenue MLK, Junior
to LCC Boulevard
Enhanced Corridor Enhanced Enhanced Enhanced Enhanced Enhanced
Package Corridor Corridor Corridor Corridor Corridor
Enhanced Enhanced Enhanced Enhanced
Package C EmX
Corridor Corridor Corridor Corridor
Package D EmX EmX
Enhanced Enhanced
Package E EmX EmX EmX
Corridor Corridor
Enhanced
EmX Package EmX EmX EmX EmX
Corridor
I would also like to invite you to meet with project staff before the public hearing, so that we might answer any
questions you have. If you’re unable to attend the public hearing, or would like more time to make an informed
decision, we are accepting written comments through November 4, 2019. If you are interested in setting up a meeting,
please let me know and we can arrange a time.
Exhibit 5
Page 103 of 290
Links to key project information:
http://www.movingahead.org/public‐hearing/
Refined Investment Package Options for Fall 2019 Public Hearing report
MovingAhead Executive Summary
Results from Spring 2019 Outreach
Sincerely,
Andrew Martin
Development Planner
P: 541-682-6116
Contact us at LTD.org
From: Meta Maxwell <metam@comcast.net>
Cc: mayorcouncilandcitymanager@ci.eugene.or.us
Subject: Moving Ahead ‐ Streets and Places Reimagined ‐ Transportation Investment Packages for City of Eugene
I am the owner of property at 315 Coburg Road.
Thank you for notifying me of the October 21, 2019, 7:30 pm open house and public hearing that will be held at the
direction of the Eugene City Council and Lane Transit District Board of Directors. The stated purpose is to consider the
proposed investment packages for the city transportation plans. However, no details of the transportation plans or
investment packages were included with the notice I received. I was only notified of one other opportunity to learn
about the projects and give input ‐ a meeting in an LTD bus at the Safeway parking lot on Coburg Road ‐ which I
attended, and at which no details of any plan were available. I suggest that the details of the proposals and investment
plans be made available to all affected property owners BEFORE a public hearing and deadline for input. It is
inappropriate to hold an open house only two hours prior to a public meeting at which input and suggestions are to be
given. No one can give appropriate thoughtful consideration to plans and proposals they are seeing for the first time
just an hour or two earlier.
Please respond and indicate how I and other affected property owners will be fully briefed, and how we will have
adequate time for consideration and response before any decisions are finalized.
Thank you!
Meta Maxwell
935 St. Andrews Drive
Eugene, OR 97401
metam@comcast.net
541‐731‐9161
Exhibit 5
Page 104 of 290
Andrew Martin
From: Andrew Martin

To: 'Philip Farrington'
Cc: 'questions@movingahead.org'
Subject: RE: FW: MovingAhead Website Contact Form Message
Dear Philip,
Acquisitions in the area you are describing differ between the Enhanced Corridor and EmX Alternatives. Under the
Enhanced Corridor Alternative, the current designs appear to require approximately 4615 square feet from 3 parcels
between Elysium and Beltline. The width of acquisitions varies by location, and can range from about 1 foot wide up to
about 15.5 feet wide. The EmX Alternative appears to require acquisition of approximately 7752 square feet from 4
parcels between Elysium and Beltline. The width of acquisitions ranges from about 8.5 feet wide to about 13.5 feet wide.
These acquisitions are necessary to accommodate changes in the roadway operations, station placement, and relocation
of the existing sidewalk to accommodate the proposed roadway changes.
These estimates are based on a GIS analysis and have some inherent margin of error based on the accuracy of the data.
Exact dimensions and area will need to be determined by surveyors after further project design. After selection of a
preferred package next year, future phases of the project will include design refinements where LTD and the City of
Eugene will work with impacted property owners to reduce or eliminate potential impacts where possible.
If you have any further questions about these potential acquisitions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Andrew Martin
Development Planner
P: 541‐682‐6116
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Philip Farrington <pfarrington@cdcmgmtcorp.com>
From: Philip Farrington <pfarrington@cdcmgmtcorp.com>
Message:
I'd like to know the specific dimensions and overall area of the area proposed for taking along the frontage of the east
side of Coburg Road north of Elysium, in both the enhanced transit and EmX options.
It appears that under the enhanced transit option that the additional right‐of‐way taking would be for a relocated
sidewalk, to accommodate a wider street profile and dedicated turn lane for east bound turning traffic from northbound
Exhibit 5
Page 105 of 290
Coburg Road. What is the width of the proposed sidewalk? Is it any wider than the existing sidewalk? Why can't there be
a through/right lane and avoid the expense and impact of right‐of‐way takings and improvements?
Understand that city requirements for maximum building setback and minimum building frontage and orientation
requirements result in inherent conflicts between the desire for additional right‐of‐way and planned in‐fill and existing
development on the subject properties. We have no antipathy toward transit and in fact welcome the proposed
signalization of the Elysium/Coburg intersection and improved access to transit. However, we believe there is adequate
right‐of‐way existing to accommodate all travel modes under either of the proposed transit options.
Please contact me asap with that information. I can be reached at my office 541/600‐8018 or via e‐mail.
Relevant Corridors:
Coburg Road
Contact Options:
I would like a response
Exhibit 5
Page 106 of 290
From: Karrie Walters-Warren <questions@movingahead.org>

Subject: MovingAhead Website Hearings Comment
Name:Karrie Walters‐Warren
Organization: Resident of River Road
Email: karrie42@gmail.com
Phone: 5417293851
Comments:
I am writing to voice my strong support for the EMX and bicycle lane improvements for River Road corridor. Investment
in our community is vital if we are to continue to grow sustainably and safely. Many individuals and families would like
to either bike or take public transportation from River Road, but current obstacles make this unaccessible to many.
Currently it can take more than an hour to get downtown by bus ‐ and much much more if we want to go to UO or LCC.
Safety on the current River Road corridor is a high concern. Cars travel quickly, using our neighborhood as a fast
commute thoroughfare instead of recognizing it as a neighborhood (we have NW Expressway for that). Installing
protected bike lanes and using visual and other traffic calming measures on river road are essential to meeting our goal
of a 20 minute walking neighborhood. The work LTD completed on Franklin blvd between Glenwood and the bridge
going to Springfield is commendable ‐ still two lanes of traffic, shared with EMX, but more curves in the road and
beautiful greenery both in the median and on the sidewalks. I would love to see the same care given to the River Road
area. Thank you!
Exhibit 5
Page 107 of 290
From: Jeb Bartin <questions@movingahead.org>

Name:Jeb Bartin
Organization: (none)
Email: jeb.bartin@hughes.com
Phone: 541‐554‐9901
Comments:
Regarding the River Road plan. No EmX ! Impacts to businesses, parking, trees would be too severe. I see nearly empty
busses along River Road constantly and having EmX will not increase ridership enough to justify ruining the nature of this
area. I, for one will never ride any LTD bus. I value my freedom of going where I want, when I want in my own
automobile. Again, my comment is NO EmX on River Road.
Thank you.
Exhibit 5
Page 108 of 290
Andrew Martin

Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 10:41 AM
To: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager; Steven Yett; Carl Yeh; Don Nordin;
Emily Secord; Joshua Skov; Caitlin Vargas; Kate Reid
Cc: MEDARY Sarah J; RODRIGUES Matt J; INERFELD Rob; HENRY Chris C; RICHARDSON
Brian J; HOSTICK Robin A; HARDING Terri L; NELSON Ethan A; Aurora Jackson; Mark
Johnson; Tom Schwetz; Andrew Martin; Theresa Brand; Pat Walsh
Subject: [External Sender] BEST in Register-Guard re MovingAhead
In case you missed it, the Register-Guard has a story this morning about MovingAhead:
EmX service could be coming to more corridors in Eugene

https://www.registerguard.com/news/20191014/emx-service-could-be-coming-to-more-corridors-in-
eugene
The story concludes with an accurate summary of where BEST stands on MovingAhead:
Better Eugene-Springfield Transportation, or BEST, a community organization that works to

improve ways residents can get around the city, said it’s studying the five packages as it drafts its
own recommendation.
Rob Zako, BEST’s executive director, said he isn’t hearing disagreement with making public
investments that allow residents to drive, bike, take the bus and walk more conveniently and
safely.
But Zako said the organization seeks more details about how the less costly “enhanced corridor”
improvements accomplish that goal and whether the benefits from spending more to launch
future EmX lines makes financial sense
“We’re trying to determine is it worth the money,” he said.
There’s also concern about whether higher operating costs from the project will result in cuts to
fixed-route service or higher taxes, he said.
Later today, the BEST Board is holding a special meeting to approve our formal “ MovingAhead Analysis and
Recommendations.” Once they do, I will share these with you. If you have any questions or concerns, we would
be happy to discuss.
Then later this week via our monthly e-newsletter, we will urge members of the public to share their views at
the public hearing on Monday, October 21, or in writing. For the public’s benefit, we will also summarize our
own analysis, and provide a link to our more detailed analysis and recommendations.
Best wishes,
Rob
Exhibit 5
Page 109 of 290
P.S. To give you a sense of BEST’s work, here is the introduction to our “MovingAhead Analysis and
Recommendations”:
INTRODUCTION
Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with our MovingAhead analysis and
recommendations.
Better Eugene-Springfield Transportation (BEST) appreciates the extensive and careful work the
project management team has done to identify investment opportunities, cull these down to just
the five most promising corridors, and prepare an Alternatives Analysis Report to objectively
identify the costs and benefits of different options.
BEST is a privately funded local 501(c)(3) nonprofit. In 2012, BEST came together as a broad
group of community leaders to support the Eugene City Council in approving the West Eugene
EmX project. Today, BEST is building a successful community by bringing people together to
promote transportation options, safe streets and walkable neighborhoods.
To develop these recommendations, over the last five years BEST attended public meetings, met
with MovingAhead staff, and conducted our own analysis. Specifically, these recommendations
represent the consensus of the BEST Board of Directors (see masthead), with advice from our
partner organizations, informed by public input via our recent series of focus groups and our
prior community conversations. BEST offers you these recommendations as our best sense of
sound public policy in the community interest.
The remainder of this memo begins with our overall analysis, reviews each of the corridors in
detail, and then offers our recommendations. In Appendix A, we trace the evolution over the past
two decades of a shared community vision for better transportation:
ANALYSIS … 3
1. Frequent and Useful Transit … 3
2. Transportation Safety … 7
3. Compact Urban Development … 8
REVIEW OF CORRIDORS … 9
RECOMMENDATIONS … 11
APPENDIX A: A SHARED VISION FOR BETTER TRANSPORTATION … 13

1. An Evolving Vision for Frequent and Useful Transit … 14
2. A New Vision for Transportation Safety … 17
3. A Fuzzy Vision for Compact Urban Development … 18
--
Rob Zako
Executive Director
541-343-5201 (home office)
541-606-0931 (mobile)
rob@best-oregon.org
www.best-oregon.org
Exhibit 5
Page 110 of 290
Exhibit 5
Page 111 of 290
Exhibit 5
Page 112 of 290
From: Luke Callahan <questions@movingahead.org>

Name:Luke Callahan
Organization:
Email: lukemcal@gmail.com
Phone: 415.705.9501
Comments:
Please don't widen any streets wherever there is an option.
Currently crossing River Road on foot is a treacherous endeavor. Doing an development beyond the "enhanced package"
would make the already bad situation even worse.
Vote for package A.
Exhibit 5
Page 113 of 290
From: Ellen Webber <questions@movingahead.org>

Name:Ellen Webber
Organization: East West Tea Company (Yogi Tea)
Email: ellen.webber@eastwesttea.com
Phone: 415‐302‐3205
Comments:
I support all projects that include an EMx line and bicycle lane improvements on River Road. River Road buses do not
come often enough to make them a viable option for commuters. Furthermore, a bike is required by most River Road
residents to access bus lines in a timely manner ‐ which thus necessitates improvements to bicycle safety on River Road.
Exhibit 5
Page 114 of 290
From: Lori Deskins <questions@movingahead.org>

Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 12:07 PM
Name:Lori Deskins
Organization:
Email: lorimagi5@gmail.com
Phone: 4582104872
Comments:
I just want to tell you that you really need an express transit that runs down Randy Pape Beltline between Gateway,
Costco on Chad & Coburg Rd, River Road, and Wal‐Mart on West 11th SO PEOPLE DON'T ALWAYS HAVE TO GO
DOWNTOWN to get from one of these 4 points to the others.
Also #55 route needs better service, later in the eve, bring back the 10:15 & 11:15 departing from DT station & for
goodness sake add WEEKEND service! There are THREE SCHOOLS & a major city park on this route (Emerald). There are
no grocery stores or other services in our neighborhood. There are lots of elderly & disabled riders, kids, families, people
without vehicles. The third housing project in as many years is now going in (N. Park & Maxwell). If you provide better
service you just might increase ridership!
It is very dangerous to walk from N. Park A MILE to River Rd. in the dark and/or in inclement weather. Also it takes so
long to get to Winco off Barger but it's literally a 5 minute drive by car. Please consider these things as you plan. We
matter, too!!!
Exhibit 5
Page 115 of 290
From: Lisa Calevi <questions@movingahead.org>

Name:Lisa Calevi
Organization:
Email: Lar@uoregon.edu
Phone: 5415158908
Comments:
Coburg road is in dire need of more public transportation options given the masisve amount of housing development
this area has seen in the last 5 yrs. Traffic is altready close to untenable; Coburg to downtown and campus would ease
that and make the daily commute a car free one for many.
Exhibit 5
Page 116 of 290
From: Cathy Feely <questions@movingahead.org>

Name:Cathy Feely
Organization:
Email: Earthleor@yahoo.com
Phone: 5419133338
Comments:
Package D you HAVE to do full emx on Coburg road the traffic is insane and there are too many people living along that
corridor to ignore. Pkg E is silly as hwy 99 does not bisect a community the way coburg does.
Exhibit 5
Page 117 of 290
From: Carol Caruso <questions@movingahead.org>

Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 5:32 AM
Name:Carol Caruso
Organization:
Email: ladyvamp5489@yahoo.com
Phone: 5416069214
Comments:
The LTD needs to have some sort of bus to go down farther on Coburg rd, so people like us can go to their home church
at First Baptist and Camp Harlow on the weekends, especially Sundays... And PLEASE make a place in the back by the
bike areas on the EMX for those with strollers and small kids... I don't know how many times i have seen disabled
people having to wait for the next bus or sit somewhere else thats difficult to sit, because the healthy people with
strollers sitting in the seat marked for disabled and elderly... Thats so frustrating for those of us who NEED to sit there.
Make those with strollers fold up their strollers and sit somewhere else... Im not the only disabled person who feels this
way. Nothing more upsetting than getting on the EMX with disabilities and seeing young healthy people sitting where
you the seats are marked for elderly and disabled with their young kids..... they need to be made to move and let the
people those seats are marked for sit down....
Exhibit 5
Page 118 of 290
From: Hillary Kittleson <questions@movingahead.org>

Name:Hillary Kittleson
Organization: Ms.
Email: hillarykittleson@msn.com
Phone: 5415434853
Comments:
Members of the City Council and Lane Transit District Board,
In selecting from the five Move Ahead transit options, you have an unprecedented opportunity to jump start the
positive transformation of the River Road/Santa Clara area by authorizing the EMX option for the River Road corridor.
At present, two high profile planning processes are going on in the River Road/Santa Clara area: The River Road/Santa
Clara Neighborhood Plan initiated by the City of Eugene and the two neighborhoods, and the River Road Corridor Study,
financed by a grant from the Federal Transit Administration. Both envision changes to River Road to decrease traffic,
increase safety for pedestrians and bicyclists, revitalize commercial areas, provide needed housing, and create a well‐
landscaped and functional arterial stretching from the Chambers Connector to the urban growth boundary.
These processes have garnered extensive community involvement and support and both are premised on the idea that
the resulting plans will lead to positive change for the community and not gather dust on a shelf. The City and LTD have
invested considerable resources in these potentially transformative plans.
By authorizing the EMX option for River Road, you can leverage those resources, respond to years of neighborhood
planning and advocacy, and create positive change “on the ground” as a tangible fruit of the neighborhood planning
process.
Please don’t let the moment slip by. Authorize the EMX option for the River Road corridor.
Sincerely,
Hillary Kittleson
Exhibit 5
Page 119 of 290

To: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager; Steven Yett; Carl Yeh; Don Nordin; Emily Secord;
Joshua Skov; Caitlin Vargas; Kate Reid
Cc: MEDARY Sarah J; RODRIGUES Matt J; INERFELD Rob; HENRY Chris C; RICHARDSON Brian J; HOSTICK
Robin A; HARDING Terri L; NELSON Ethan A; Aurora Jackson; Mark Johnson; Tom Schwetz; MARTIN
Andrew (SMTP); Theresa Brand; Pat Walsh; MovingAhead
Subject: BEST's MovingAhead Analysis & Recommendations
Attachments: BEST MovingAhead 2019-10-14.pdf; Untitled attachment 00044.html;
Importance: High
Now after years of involvement, months of detailed study and discussion, and unanimous approval by our Board of
Directors at a special meeting yesterday, BEST is pleased to attach our detailed “MovingAhead Analysis &
Recommendations.”
In brief, BEST supports the community’s vision for complete streets that enabled people to get around in safety and that
offer frequent and useful transit. We also support the Envision Eugene vision for compact urban development, especially
along Envision Eugene’s six Key Corridors, providing a variety of housing types close to good transportation options. We
believe that this vision supports the triple bottom line of people, prosperity and the planet. Finally, given limited funding
and pressing needs, we support being smart and advancing these goals as cost‐effectively and quickly as possible to see
a return on investment.
After reviewing the MovingAhead Alternatives Analysis Report in detail, a handful of adopted local plans, other sources
of analysis, and information about best practices, we offer three recommendations:
1. Prioritize the Franklin Boulevard Transformation project and seek funding to make needed improvements as
soon as possible to enable more frequent transit service, create a complete street, and support new development
around the UO.
2. Select Enhanced Corridor as the locally preferred alternative for each of the five MovingAhead corridors—
with the understanding that the first priority is to make needed safety improvements for people bicycling, walking
or using mobility devices; second to make targeted improvements to reduce traffic congestion or improve transit
service; third to spur transit‐oriented development where detailed land use planning determines it is both desired
and economically feasible; and lastly to pursue an “open” form of BRT only if funding for both capital and
operating costs is feasible.
3. Develop a joint citywide transportation and land use strategic business plan, before pursuing capital
investments in any of the MovingAhead corridors. The plan should articulate the outcomes the community
desires, select strategies for achieving those outcomes, provide a timeline of actions to implement those
strategies, and provide a funding plan to ensure there are sufficient resources. BEST offers possible elements of
such a plan, which in the future could include pursuing EmX demonstrated to be cost‐effective.
Note that we were led to recommend Enhanced Corridor by following the data available to us at this time.
Exhibit 5
Page 120 of 290
First, we note that since TransPlan was first adopted in 2001, our community vision for better transit has evolved from
that for a system of 61 miles of bus rapid transit (BRT) served by feeder buses and linking together nodal development
areas to one for a Frequent Transit Network (FTN) of service along major corridors every 15 minutes or better. We note
that Transit Tomorrow is on track to substantially provide that complete FTN as soon as Fall 2020—with existing
infrastructure. So why would we invest as much as $332 million in infrastructure if we can realize the FTN without it, at
least in the short term?
Second, we discount ridership projections, as in the past these have proven to be unreliable. But we taken reductions in
travel travel times seriously. We note that the Enhanced Corridor alternatives provide most of the travel time savings.
For example, for Highway 99 the Enhanced Corridor alternative is projected to save 10 minutes but the EmX alternatives
is projected to save 12 minutes, just 2 minutes more. We do not see that the significantly higher costs of EmX justifies
the marginal benefits.
Third, as construction costs have been paid for mostly with federal and state grants in the past, BEST is willing to trust
that this could also be the case int he future. But we do not see any mechanism for paying for transit operating costs
other than to use monies LTD is currently using to pay for service. We note that the Enhanced Corridor Package is
projected to reduce operating costs by $100,000 per year but that the EmX Package is projected to increase operating
costs by $8.2 million per year. Especially in light of cuts made last year to Gateway EmX service, BEST is concerned that
the EmX alternatives could lead to cuts in service elsewhere—or else higher taxes.
Fourth, we note the distinction, first made by Jarrett Walker in relation to the West Eugene project, that EmX is a
“closed” for of BRT: It uses specialized buses and elevated stations that cannot interoperate with regular buses and
stations / stops. As such, LTD is currently running two different bus systems, with select transfer points between the
two. Investing in more EmX risks reducing the flexibility of how LTD provides service. For example, in response to lower
demand, LTD cannot run regular buses to the EmX stations by PeaceHealth RiverBend and International Way but rather
is forced to continue running EmX buses. For example, if EmX were constructed along River Road but not 30th Avenue, a
student going to LCC wold be forced to transfer from an EmX bus to a regular bus to complete the trip. In contrast,
Transit Tomorrow is looking at running a single regular bus for the entire trip, avoiding the need for a transfer.
Fifth, in line with Vision Zero, we see it as vital to make safety improvements especially for the most vulnerable users of
our streets that walk, bicycle or use mobility devices. We urge making such improvements as quickly as possible, not
waiting years or decades in the hopes of large grants from the Federal Transit Administration.
Lastly, we are not seeing evidence that major investments in transit will necessarily lead to significant compact urban
development—at least not absent other actions related to parking polices and land use.
We have put a lot of thought and effort into our detailed analysis and hope you find this useful.
But we continue to have key questions not yet answered by the the MovingAhead Alternatives Analysis Report. In
particular, we are recommending Enhanced Corridor but seek more clarity on what this new concept actually is, whether
it is intended to be a “open” form of bus service, whether is qualifies as a kind of BRT, and whether it would be eligible
for federal grant funding. More broadly, in calling for a strategic business plan, we are suggesting a more intentional and
comprehensive effort to achieve community goals by stringing together a series of cost‐effective actions likely to do so.
We hope that a strategic business plan will address many of the questions we still have.
To learn more, please see our detailed “MovingAhead Analysis & Recommendations.”
Again, if you have questions or concerns, please let us know.
For BEST,
Rob
Exhibit 5
Page 121 of 290
Board of Directors
Jon Belcher Date: October 14, 2019
Eric Burdette
Wendee Crofoot
Tiffany Edwards
Mike Eyster To: Eugene City Council
Bob Passaro Lane Transit District Board of Directors
Laura Potter
Brett Rowlett
Rob Zako
Re: MovingAhead Analysis and Recommendations
Board of Advisors
John Allcott
Susan Ban
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Bob Beals
BEST finds there is broad community support for complete streets that enable
Terry Beyer
Alexis Biddle people to walk, bicycle, or use a mobility device in safety; to access frequent and
Shawn Boles useful transit; or to drive. Such complete streets support Eugene’s vision for
Julie Daniel
Rick Duncan
compact urban development. To varying degrees, members of the community see
Tim Duy that such better transportation is good for the triple bottom line of people,
Emily Eng prosperity and the planet. Moreover, taxpayers want to see a return on
Karmen Fore
David Funk investment to benefit the community more with limited public dollars.
Gerry Gaydos
Beth Gerot To advance this community vision for better transportation, BEST recommends:
Kevin Gilbride
George Grier 1. Prioritize the Franklin Boulevard Transformation project and seek
Eric Gunderson
Pat Hocken
funding to make needed improvements as soon as possible to enable more
Richard Hughes frequent transit service, create a complete street, and support new
Josh Kashinsky development around the UO.
Kaarin Knudson
Sarah Mazze
Terry McDonald
2. Select Enhanced Corridor as the locally preferred alternative for each
Sophie McGinley of the five MovingAhead corridors—with the understanding that the first
Matt McRae priority is to make needed safety improvements for people bicycling,
Tom Mulhern walking or using mobility devices; second to make targeted improvements
Walt Norblad to reduce traffic congestion or improve transit service; third to spur transit-
Mark Pangborn
oriented development where detailed land use planning determines it is
Shane Rhodes both desired and economically feasible; and lastly to pursue an “open” form
Matt Roberts of BRT only if funding for both capital and operating costs is feasible.
Seth Sadofsky
Marc Schlossberg
Carmel Snyder
3. Develop a joint citywide transportation and land use strategic business
Jean Tate plan, before pursuing capital investments in any of the MovingAhead
Kari Turner corridors. The plan should articulate the outcomes the community desires,
Jenny Ulum
Carmen Urbina select strategies for achieving those outcomes, provide a timeline of actions
Stefano Viggiano to implement those strategies, and provide a funding plan to ensure there
Sue Wolling
are sufficient resources. BEST offers possible elements of such a plan, which
in the future could include pursuing EmX demonstrated to be cost-effective.
Building a successful community by bringing people together to promote

transportation options, safe streets, and walkable neighborhoods.
Exhibit 5
Page 122 of 290
BEST, MovingAhead Analysis and Recommendations, 10/14/2019 Page 2 of 20
INTRODUCTION
Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with our MovingAhead analysis and
recommendations.
Better Eugene-Springfield Transportation (BEST) appreciates the extensive and careful
work the project management team has done to identify investment opportunities, cull these
down to just the five most promising corridors, and prepare an Alternatives Analysis Report
to objectively identify the costs and benefits of different options.1
BEST is a privately funded local 501(c)(3) nonprofit. In 2012, BEST came together as a broad
group of community leaders to support the Eugene City Council in approving the West
Eugene EmX project. Today, BEST is building a successful community by bringing people
together to promote transportation options, safe streets and walkable neighborhoods.
To develop these recommendations, over the last five years BEST attended public meetings,
met with MovingAhead staff,2 and conducted our own analysis. Specifically, these
recommendations represent the consensus of the BEST Board of Directors (see masthead),
with advice from our partner organizations, informed by public input via our recent series
of focus groups and our prior community conversations. BEST offers you these
recommendations as our best sense of sound public policy in the community interest.
The remainder of this memo begins with our overall analysis, reviews each of the corridors
in detail, and then offers our recommendations. In Appendix A, we trace the evolution over
the past two decades of a shared community vision for better transportation:
ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................3
1. Frequent and Useful Transit...........................................................................3
2. Transportation Safety .....................................................................................7
3. Compact Urban Development........................................................................8
REVIEW OF CORRIDORS ..........................................................................................9
RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................11
APPENDIX A: A SHARED VISION FOR BETTER TRANSPORTATION......................13
1. An Evolving Vision for Frequent and Useful Transit..................................14
2. A New Vision for Transportation Safety .....................................................17
3. A Fuzzy Vision for Compact Urban Development......................................18
1 Alternatives Analysis Report, MovingAhead, September 2018,
http://www.movingahead.org/alternatives-analysis-report/.
2 BEST met with staff to learn about MovingAhead. See “Feedback on MovingAhead,” BEST, May 13, 2019,
http://www.best-oregon.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/BEST-LTD-MovingAhead-2019-05-13.pdf.
Exhibit 5
Page 123 of 290
ANALYSIS
As detailed in Appendix A below, there is broad community support for complete streets that
enable people to walk, bicycle, or use a mobility device in safety; to access frequent and useful
transit; or to drive. Such complete streets support Eugene’s vision for compact urban
development. To varying degrees, members of the community see that such better
transportation is good for the triple bottom line of people, prosperity and the planet.
Moreover, taxpayers want to see a return on investment to benefit the community more with
limited public dollars.3, 4
But if it is clear what the community wants, which MovingAhead investments best advance
these public interests?
To arrive at an answer, BEST looks at three key aspects of this shared vision: 1) frequent and
useful transit, 2) transportation safety, and 3) compact urban development.
1. Frequent and Useful Transit

Below we examine reasons to invest in infrastructure to provide frequent and useful transit:
• Building out the BRT system
• Increasing transit ridership
• Reducing transit travel times
• Reducing transit operating cost
• Tapping into federal funding
• Flexible implementation
Building out the BRT system

As detailed in Appendix A, in 2001 with TransPlan the community embraced a vision for 61
miles of bus rapid transit (BRT) linking nodal development areas and served by feeder buses.
A primary aim of MovingAhead is to “develop a capital investment program” in order to build
out “the region’s vision for BRT.”
But over the past two decades, the region’s vision for transit has evolved from one focused
on BRT infrastructure to one focused on useful service. LTD’s Long-Range Transit Plan
adopted in 2014 and Eugene’s 2035 Transportation System Plan adopted in 2017 do not
necessarily call for a BRT system but rather for a Frequent Transit Network (FTN).
Today the community is on the verge of substantially realizing the vision for a FTN—using
existing infrastructure. Set to be implemented as early as Fall 2020, the Transit Tomorrow
3 Before his untimely passing, Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce president Dave Hauser at an EmX
Steering Committee meeting asked about the return on investment of MovingAhead alternatives.
4 See also “If You’re Planning to Invest in Infrastructure, You Need to Understand These 3 Concepts,” Strong
Towns, March 25, 2013, https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2013/3/25/three-core-understandings.html.
Exhibit 5
Page 124 of 290
Draft Network Plan calls for transit service every 15 minutes on most of the FTN corridors,
including along the five MovingAhead corridors.
It is unclear why major investments in additional BRT would be needed to advance

the FTN, at least in the short term.
Increasing transit ridership

Since TransPlan, the community has begun implementing a form of BRT, branded as EmX.
Launched in 2007, the first segment from downtown Eugene to downtown Springfield has
been an unqualified success. It exceeded ridership projections within its first year of
operation.5 Today, demand is so high that Transit Tomorrow recommends even more
frequent service.
Launched in 2011, the second segment from downtown Springfield to Gateway and
RiverBend has been a mixed success. In 2015, a consultant study prepared for the Eugene
Area Chamber of Commerce suggested that ridership was well below projections—at least
along International Way and by RiverBend.6 In 2018, LTD confirmed this assessment when
it reduced service from every 10 minutes to every 15 minutes, citing lower ridership and a
need to cut operating cost.7
Launched in 2017, the third segment from downtown to west Eugene has also been a mixed
success. In 2019, LTD reported that average weekday ridership had been projected to be
7,399 but the recent actual figure was 4,245.8
The Alternatives Analysis Report estimates the systemwide annual ridership increase, as well
as the number of jobs and people served. But it does not estimate the increase in useful
transit, for example, the number of jobs accessible within 45 minutes.9
Insofar as past projections of future ridership have proved unreliable, it is unclear

how much weight to give to projections contained in the Alternatives Analysis Report.
Reducing transit travel times

Instead, we focus on projections for in-vehicle transit travel times.
5 “London, Paris Edge Out Guatemala City; Eugene, Oregon; & Pereira, Colombia for 2008 ST Award,” Earth
Times, January 14, 2008,

https://www.itdp.org/2008/01/14/london-paris-edge-out-guatemala-city-eugene-oregon-pereira-
colombia-for-2008-st-award/.
6 “Performance Review of Lane Transit District’s Gateway EmX,” CSA Planning, November 2015,
http://csaplanning.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/GatewayEMXperformancereview_webversion_2.pdf.
7 “Based on productivity differences among the different segments, the EmX line would be split into two
routes. The Springfield Station–Eugene Station–Commerce segment would maintain current 10-minute service.
The Gateway-Springfield Station segment would move to 15-minute service to align with current demand.”
Board meeting, LTD, June 20, 2018, https://www.ltd.org/file_viewer.php?id=3117.
8 Board meeting, LTD, July 17, 2019, https://www.ltd.org/file_viewer.php?id=3776.
9 A key measure Transit Tomorrow uses to evaluate different service scenarios is the number of jobs
accessible within 45 minutes from a given location.
Exhibit 5
Page 125 of 290
As summarized in the table below, investments in Enhanced Corridor provide time savings
of 10 minutes for Highway 99, 5 minutes for River Road and Coburg Road, 2 minutes for
Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd., and 1 minute for 30th Avenue.
Such reduced travel times do make transit more useful and can result in increased ridership.
But compared to Enhanced Corridor, investments in EmX provide additional times savings
of just 3 minutes for River Road, 2 minutes for Highway 99, 1 minute for 30th Avenue, and no
savings at all for Coburg Road.
It is not clear that there is a significant enough decrease in transit travel times to
justify the higher capital cost for EmX as compared to Enhanced Corridor.
Reducing transit operating cost

An adopted goal of MovingAhead is to “meet current and future transit demand in a cost-
effective and sustainable manner” with objectives to “control the increase in transit
operating cost to serve the corridor” and to “implement corridor improvements that provide
an acceptable return on investment.”10
The Enhanced Corridor Package is estimated to reduce system-wide operating cost by
$100,000 per year, which might not be significant but is at least headed in the right direction.
In contrast, the EmX Package is estimated increase system-wide operating cost by
$8.2 million per year.11 It is unclear where funding for the increased operating cost would
come from, nor whether LTD’s general fund nor State Transportation Improvement Fund
(STIF) monies would be tapped.
The increased operating costs for EmX alternatives could result in cuts to other transit
service, especially in light of the recent cuts to service for Gateway EmX.
Tapping into federal funding

The total estimated capital cost for the offered packages range from $145 million for the
Enhanced Corridor Package to $332 million for the EmX Package.
EmX and Enhanced Corridor could qualify for federal funding. For example, Small Starts is a
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) discretionary and competitive grant program that can
fund fixed guideway and corridor-based BRT projects.12
Before applying for a Small Starts grant, FTA requires completing an environmental review
process including developing and reviewing alternatives, selecting a locally preferred
10 “Preliminary Purpose and Need, Goals and Objectives,” MovingAhead, October 16, 2015,
http://www.movingahead.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/MovingAhead-PNGO-20151016.pdf.
11 The increased operating cost for EmX are likely due to the assumption that it would provide service
every 10 minutes whereas Enhanced Corridor would provide service just every 15 minutes. In light of the more
recent Transit Tomorrow analysis, it is unclear that service every 10 minutes is justified anywhere except along
Franklin Boulevard. Nonetheless, BEST feels obligated to assess the alternatives based on provided figures.
12 “Capital Investment Grants Program,” FTA, https://www.transit.dot.gov/CIG.
Exhibit 5
Page 126 of 290
alternative (LPA), and adopting it into fiscally-constrained long-range transportation plan;

gaining commitments of all non-5309 (match) funding; and completing sufficient
engineering and design. Then FTA evaluates and ranks grant proposals based on six factors:
mobility, environmental benefits, congestion relief, economic development, land use and
cost effectiveness (cost per trip).13 It is unclear how well the various MovingAhead
alternatives might compete for Small Starts or other federal funding.
Moreover, it is unclear how large a local match would be required to access federal funds.
For example, if there were a requirement for a 50% match, it would range from $72.5 million
for the Enhanced Corridor Package to $166 million for the EmX Package. It is also unclear
where local match funds would come from, nor whether LTD’s general fund nor State
Transportation Improvement Fund (STIF) monies would be tapped.
The need to secure local match funding for either Enhanced Corridor or EmX
alternatives could result in cuts to transit service.
Flexible implementation
Compared to light-rail, a strength of BRT is that it can be flexibly implemented, using
dedicated lanes, business access and transit (BAT) lanes, or running in mixed traffic.
To date, BRT has been implemented using a combination of specialized vehicles and stations
branded as EmX, a “closed” form of BRT: EmX vehicles can operate with EmX stations, and
regular buses can operate with regular stops and stations, but the two systems cannot
interoperate.14, 15 As such, an expansion of the current EmX system could result in
operational limitations.
For example, today LTD could not switch to using regular buses to serve EmX stations along
International Way and by RiverBend.
For example, if EmX were built along River Road but not along 30th Avenue, it would not be
possible to go from River Road to Lane Community College without switching vehicles.
As a “closed” form of BRT, EmX suffers some operational limitations and should be
limited to corridors where challenges and opportunities exist substantially along the
length of the corridor and that offer the highest level of potential for transit-oriented
development and ridership growth.
13 “About Capital Investment Grant Programs,” FTA,
https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grant-programs/capital-investments/about-program.
14 “Review of West Eugene EmX Project,” Jarrett Walker, April 19, 2012,
http://www.best-oregon.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Review-of-West-Eugene-EmX-Project-
2012-04-19.pdf.
15 See also “Bus Rapid Transit Followup,” Human Transit, November 19, 2009,
https://humantransit.org/2009/11/bus-rapid-transit-followup.html.
Exhibit 5
Page 127 of 290
“Enhanced Corridor is a new concept for the Eugene-Springfield region, and is intended to
improve safety, access and transit service without requiring major capital investments.”16
But many are still not quite sure what this new concept is.
At least some are concerned that Enhanced Corridor is being offered as “not EmX” but if
approved could turn out to be “EmX Lite.”
BEST also has questions about what Enhanced Corridor actually is but is encouraged by
Portland’s example.17
In particular, BEST is unclear on whether Enhanced Corridor is a kind of BRT, if it is intended
to be an “open” or “closed” kind of bus service, and whether it would be eligible for FTA Small
Starts or other federal funding.
If it is an “open” kind of bus service, Enhanced Corridor offers the opportunity of

making smaller and more targeted investments in infrastructure, especially to
address particular bottlenecks or to enhance stops and stations with large and
growing ridership—without necessarily needing to rebuild an entire corridor.18, 19, 20
2. Transportation Safety
As detailed in Appendix A, the City of Eugene finds that the health and safety of residents are
the utmost priority.
16 Alternatives Analysis Report, MovingAhead, September 2018,
http://www.movingahead.org/alternatives-analysis-report/.
17 “TriMet designates a small set of major bus lines as the Frequent Service network. Frequent Service
transit lines run every 15 minutes or better most of the day, every day. At this level of service, a bus is coming
soon whenever you need it, and it is easy to transfer from one line to another to travel in many directions. For
this reason, high frequency is associated with high ridership. Frequent bus lines are always among TriMet’s
busiest. They carry 58% of all bus ridership in the region. …
“The City’s 2035 Comprehensive Plan and planning and zoning process is encouraging more density along
much of the Frequent Service network, so over time an even larger share of the population will live on it.
Therefore, it makes sense to focus our attention on those lines.
“Enhanced Transit is the next step in improving the Frequent Service network so that even more people
find it useful. Enhanced Transit Corridors (ETC) are portions of the Frequent Service network that are high
priorities for speed and reliability improvement, as identified by this Plan.”
See Enhanced Transit Corridors Plan, PBOT, June 20, 2018,
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/73684.
18 “Cities need to make many small investments … all aimed at improving the quality of life. The goal is to
nudge private capital off the sidelines by responding to the struggles of people already living there. Make their
lives better and things will get better. This involves a simple, four-step approach: 1. Identify where people …
struggle going about their daily routine. 2. Identify the next smallest thing that can be done today to address
that struggle. 3. Do that thing. Do it right away. 4. Repeat the process.” See “Iterating the Neighborhood: The
Big Returns of Small Investments,” Strong Towns, October 3, 2019,
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2019/9/19/the-strong-towns-approach-to-public-investment-
satbook.
19 See also Strong Towns: A Bottom-Up Revolution to Rebuild American Prosperity, Charles Marohn,
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2019/9/30/strong-towns-book-release-day-satbook.
20 See also “The Spectacular Benefits of Tactical Urbanism,” Streetsblog USA, September 11, 2019,
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/09/11/the-spectacular-benefits-of-tactical-urbanism/.
Exhibit 5
Page 128 of 290
There is a critical need to invest as soon as possible in safety improvements for especially
the most vulnerable people bicycling, walking and using mobility devices.
Staff have suggested the possibility of making such improvement incrementally as (local)
funding becomes available.
Staff have also suggested that part of the attraction of MovingAhead is to bundle transit
projects with safety ones. For example, federal transit funding could be used for sidewalk
improvements, as was the case with West Eugene EmX. Moreover, by bundling together
transit, bicycle and pedestrian investments using different sources of funding, it could be
more feasible to meet the match requirements for some federal funding.
But especially if there is already local funding, a downside of bundling could be to trade some
needed safety improvements today for the possibility of larger investments in a corridor
years in the future.
The interaction between local funding for safety improvements and federal funding
for transit improvements is not clear.
3. Compact Urban Development

As detailed in Appendix A, the City of Eugene envisions compact urban development along
six Key Corridors: West 11th Avenue, Highway 99, River Road, Coburg Road, Franklin
Boulevard and South Willamette Street.
But today this vision is a work in progress, still awaiting more detailed planning and the
adoption of needed land use changes.
Currently, of the six Key Corridors, the segment of Franklin Boulevard running east-west by
the University of Oregon is the closest to having changes adopted (although our
understanding is that the Franklin Boulevard Transformation project is focused on
transportation infrastructure changes and not looking at adopting land use changes.)
The River Road Corridor Study shows promise but has not yet resulted in a clear vision for
the corridor. (An earlier study for South Willamette Street was put on hold after years of
effort and controversy.) And to date, West 11th Avenue, Highway 99 and Coburg Road have
not yet experienced detailed planning.
Meanwhile, economic studies commissioned by the City of Eugene provide no compelling
evidence that “if we build it, they will come,” i.e., that investments in either Enhanced
Corridor or EmX—at least on their own—would spur much transit-oriented development.21
Transportation investments can be expected to increase rents that property owners

can charge—but perhaps not enough to close the gap between higher construction
costs and lower rents to spur much transit-oriented development, at least at present.
21 For example, BEST reviewed a draft Eugene River Road Economic Study that ECONorthwest prepared in
April 2019 for the City of Eugene.
Exhibit 5
Page 129 of 290
REVIEW OF CORRIDORS
The highest priority corridor in Eugene for major transportation investments is actually not
one of the five MovingAhead corridors:
• Franklin Boulevard was designed as a state highway business route but now
functions as a main street: the University of Oregon’s “front porch.” It already
experiences the highest ridership of any LTD corridor. But in order to better serve a
demand for more frequent service, Transit Tomorrow has identified a critical need to
double track the existing EmX line. Moreover, Franklin Boulevard is part of the High
Crash Network (but no portion is identified in LTD’s Pedestrian Network Analysis). It
is an Envision Eugene Key Corridor, arguably the one with the greatest potential for
transit-oriented development. The project is estimated to cost roughly $28 million.
Of the MovingAhead corridors, BEST recommends prioritizing them in the following order:
1. River Road is the corridor that shows the most immediate promise for EmX. It is part
of the High Crash Network and portions are identified in LTD’s Pedestrian Network
Analysis. It is an Envision Eugene Key Corridor. There is sufficient right-of-way to
make significant changes without unduly affecting motor vehicle traffic or
surrounding businesses. The EmX alternative provides for business access and transit
(BAT) lanes for most of the way from Northwest Expressway to Beltline. And BEST
understands there is some neighborhood support for the EmX alternative.
But the River Road Corridor Study is not yet complete and the City of Eugene has not
yet adopted land use changes to encourage transit-oriented development along the
corridor. For the EmX alternative, the estimated increase in system-wide operating
cost of $2 million per year would amount to $40 million over 20 years—with no
funding yet identified.
2. Coburg Road appears to offer the best potential for transit-oriented development.
Moreover, with no other solutions to growing traffic congestion, there is a need to do
something creative. Coburg Road is part of the High Crash Network and portions are
identified in LTD’s Pedestrian Network Analysis. It is an Envision Eugene Key Corridor.
But high motor vehicle traffic volumes and limited right-of-way along Coburg Road
could make it difficult to acquire dedicated or BAT lanes. The City of Eugene has not
yet conducted a detailed land use study engaging local residents and business owners,
calling into question whether there is yet strong support for EmX or Enhanced
Corridor. For the EmX alternative, the estimated increase in system-wide operating
cost of $1.8 million per year would amount to $36 million over 20 years—with no
funding yet identified.
3. Highway 99 runs through some of the most transportation disadvantaged parts of
Eugene.22 It is part of the High Crash Network and portions are identified in LTD’s
Pedestrian Network Analysis. Highway 99 is an Envision Eugene Key Corridor.
22 For example, see “Figure 10.6. Households without a Vehicle Map, 2007–2011,” Lane Livability
Consortium, https://www.livabilitylane.org/projects/equity_and_opportunity.htm.
Exhibit 5
Page 130 of 290
But the surrounding pedestrian network could reduce how many people could access
transit stations. The City of Eugene has not yet conducted a detailed land use study to
identify transit-oriented development opportunities. For the EmX alternative, the
estimated increase in system-wide operating cost of $2.8 million per year would
amount to $56 million over 20 years—with no funding yet identified.
4. 30th Avenue does not appear to be a good candidate for an EmX alternative. Transit
service today with existing infrastructure is already frequent and reliable.
30th Avenue is not part of the High Crash Network and no portion is identified in LTD’s
Pedestrian Network Analysis. It is not an Envision Eugene Key Corridor. For the EmX
alternative, the estimated increase in system-wide operating cost of $0.5 million per
year would amount to $10 million over 20 years—with no funding yet identified.
5. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. does not have an EmX alternative nor is it an Envision
Eugene Key Corridor. It is part of the High Crash Network (but no portion is identified
in LTD’s Pedestrian Network Analysis).
The following tables summarize key costs and benefits from the Alternatives Analysis Report:
Capital Costs.
Enhanced
Corridor No-Build Corridor EmX
River Road $0.0M $24.0M $78.0M
Coburg Road $0.0M $41.0M $113.0M
Highway 99 $0.0M $38.0M $67.0M
30th Avenue $0.0M $12.0M $53.0M
Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. $0.0M $21.0M —
Change in Systemwide Annual Operating Costs.

Enhanced
River Road $0.0M –$0.6M $2.0M
Coburg Road $0.0M $0.0M $1.8M
Highway 99 $0.0M –$0.1M $2.8M
30th Avenue $0.0M –$0.5M $0.5M
Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. $0.0M $1.1M —
In-Vehicle Transit Travel Time Savings.

Enhanced
River Road 0 5 min 8 min
Coburg Road 0 5 min 5 min
Highway 99 0 10 min 12 min
30th Avenue 0 1 min 2 min
Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. 0 2 min —
Exhibit 5
Page 131 of 290
RECOMMENDATIONS
To advance the shared community vision for better transportation, based on the analysis
above BEST recommends the following infrastructure investments and other actions:
1. Prioritize the Franklin Boulevard Transformation project and seek funding to
make needed improvements as soon as possible to enable more frequent transit
service, create a complete street, and support new development around the UO.
2. Select Enhanced Corridor as the locally preferred alternative for each of the five
MovingAhead corridors—with the understanding that the first priority is to make
needed safety improvements for people bicycling, walking or using mobility devices;
second to make targeted improvements to reduce traffic congestion or improve
transit service; third to spur transit-oriented development where detailed land use
planning determines it is both desired and economically feasible; and lastly to pursue
an “open” form of BRT only if funding for both capital and operating costs is feasible.
3. Develop a joint citywide transportation and land use strategic business plan,
before pursuing capital investments in any of the MovingAhead corridors. The plan
should articulate the outcomes the community desires, select strategies for achieving
those outcomes, provide a timeline of actions to implement those strategies, and
provide a funding plan to ensure there are sufficient resources.23
Such a strategic business plan could include elements such as the following:
a. By Fall 2020 or as soon as feasible, implement Transit Tomorrow to
substantially realize the FTN.
b. A year after Transit Tomorrow has been in operation, assess changes in
ridership and community demand for more service—both longer hours and
more places. Determine how much more operating funding, if any, would be
needed to provide the community with the transit service it needs.
c. Develop a long-term transit financial stability plan that identifies a needed
level of financial reserves to ensure LTD can guarantee the community some
minimum core service during up and down business cycles.
d. Develop a climate change policy to guide efforts to increase transit service and
ridership in line with local plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from
transportation.24, 25, 26
23 For over three years, LTD has recognized the need to develop a 10-year strategic business plan.
24 For example, see the Central Lane Scenario Plan, LCOG, June 2015,
https://www.lcog.org/367/Central-Lane-Scenario-Planning.
25 For example, see “Climate Recovery Ordinance and Climate Action Plan 2.0,” City of Eugene,
https://www.eugene-or.gov/3210/Climate-Recovery-Ordinance.
26 For example, see “Greenhouse Gas Inventory Results FY12–18,” LTD, available in the board packet,
September 16, 2019, https://www.ltd.org/file_viewer.php?id=3909.
Exhibit 5
Page 132 of 290
e. Develop a right-of-way protection policy to protect existing right-of-way for

desired future improvements and to limit adjacent development that could
make the cost of acquiring additional right-of-way prohibitive.27
f. Develop a major improvements policy to guide when major capital
infrastructure investments are warranted.28
g. Develop a policy to guide when, if ever, it would make sense to divert funding
from transit service to capital infrastructure investments.
h. After the completion of the River Road Corridor Study,29 if there is
neighborhood support and if funding for both capital and operating costs is
feasible, pursue the EmX alternative in conjunction with adopting land use
changes to support transit-oriented development.
i. Convene a select task force of stakeholders, especially key business owners,
along Coburg Road to assess whether the business-as-usual scenario of no
major improvements and growing traffic congestion is acceptable, or whether
some targeted investments such as Enhanced Corridor might make sense.
j. Convene transportation disadvantaged people especially living in the Bethel
area to learn what transportation service or infrastructure improvements—
or other changes—would do the most as soon as possible to improve their
options for getting where they need to go.
k. Prior to committing to a major transportation investment along a corridor,
first design the place the community wants the corridor to become.30 For
example, develop and adopt an integrated transportation and land use
refinement plan that focuses on the experiences of people using the corridor
and that identifies land use changes along the corridor and connectivity
improvements in the surrounding neighborhood.31, 32, 33
27 As part of its work, the West Eugene Collaborative called on the Eugene City Council and the Eugene
Planning Commission to change setback requirements in order to preserve potential right-of-way for future
improvements. See “Building setback standards along West 11th Avenue,” Larry Reed & Rob Zako, October 15,
2008, http://www.best-oregon.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/WEC-ECC-Setbacks-20081015.pdf.
28 “It is the policy of the State of Oregon to maintain highway performance and improve safety by improving
system efficiency and management before adding capacity. …” See Policy 1G: Major Improvements, 1999
Oregon Highway Plan, ODOT, https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Planning/Pages/Plans.aspx.
29 Note that LTD is partnering with the UO on three student projects: “River Road Corridor Transportation
Hubs,” “Re-imagining River Road for Ecological Equity,” and “River Road Station Site.” See “Sustainable City
Year Program: LTD,” https://sci.uoregon.edu/sustainable-city-year-program-lane-transit-district.
30 For example, is a given corridor intended to be a street for people to be or a road for people to travel
through? See “What’s a STROAD and why does it matter?” Strong Towns, March 2, 2018,
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/3/1/whats-a-stroad-and-why-does-it-matter.
31 For example, see “Streets as Places Toolkit,” Project for Public Spaces, September 15, 2015,
https://www.pps.org/article/streets-as-places.
32 “Designing Street for People,” Transportation Alternatives, October 23, 2018,
https://medium.com/vision-zero-cities-journal/designing-streets-for-people-13b8078abd07.
33 In Spring 2019, UO Prof. Yizhao Yang’s GIS class conducted a detailed block-by-block analysis of Gateway
EmX, finding the transit service to be excellent. But their data suggests there have not been sufficient changes
to the pedestrian environment to connect people in surrounding neighborhoods to that service.
Exhibit 5
Page 133 of 290
APPENDIX A:
A SHARED VISION FOR BETTER TRANSPORTATION
Broadly speaking, BEST sees that the community shares BEST’s vision for transportation
options, safe streets and walkable neighborhoods.
Today, this vision is for complete streets that enable people to walk, bicycle, or use a
mobility device in safety; to access frequent and useful transit; or to drive. Such
complete streets support Eugene’s vision for compact urban development.
To varying degrees, members of the community see that such better transportation is
good for the triple bottom line of people, prosperity and the planet.
Moreover, taxpayers want to see a return on investment to benefit the community
more with limited public dollars.
Community support for this vision is confirmed by public feedback on MovingAhead34 and
Transit Tomorrow.35 It is also confirmed by BEST’s own focus groups on transportation
investment priorities,36 as well as our community conversations a few years back.37
Moreover, this vision is articulated by various City of Eugene and LTD plans.
But because this vision has evolved over time and is articulated in different ways in different
plans, here we want to trace the development of this shared vision by looking at plans 1) for
frequent and useful transit, 2) for transportation safety, and 3) for compact urban
development.
34 “Key findings:
“Participants ranked safety and health as the most important investments for transportation
improvements. Livable communities and environmental stewardship/sustainability were ranked the second
and third most important values, respectively. …
“Participants considered access to all modes of travel for all people as the most important value for livable
communities.
“Participants ranked eliminating transportation-related fatalities and injuries as the most important value
for safety and health.
“Attracting a good workforce with quality public transit and planning for future residential and business
growth were both top economic development values.
“Participants ranked efficient connections between travel methods as the most important value about
transportation systems, followed closely by reliable bus service. …”
See Community Values Survey, LTD, April 23, 2018,
http://www.movingahead.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/LTD-Report-FINAL-4-23-18.pdf.
35 A key finding of the Transit Tomorrow public engagement is that there is overwhelming support for
more service rather than lower fares. See Transit Tomorrow Phase 2 Outreach Summary, LTD, March 18, 2019,
https://www.ltd.org/file_viewer.php?id=3537.
36 See summary of focus groups, https://www.best-oregon.org/focus-groups-2019.
37 Community Conversations Report, BEST, updated November 2016,
https://www.best-oregon.org/ccreport/.
Exhibit 5
Page 134 of 290
1. An Evolving Vision for Frequent and Useful Transit

A primary aim of MovingAhead is to “develop a capital investment program” in order to build
out “the region’s vision for bus rapid transit (BRT).”38
But over the past two decades, the region’s vision for transit has evolved from one
focused on more better infrastructure (i.e., BRT) to one focused on more useful service
(i.e., Frequent Transit Network and Transit Tomorrow).
2001: TransPlan envisioned investing $100 million in a system of 61 miles of BRT, served by
feeder buses and linking together nodal development areas, “1) if the system is shown to
increase transit mode split along BRT corridors, 2) if local governments demonstrate
support, and 3) if financing for the system is feasible”:39
Bus Rapid Transit System, TransPlan (2001).
2007: The first EmX bus rapid transit line from downtown Eugene to downtown Springfield
began operations.
2011: The second EmX line to Gateway and RiverBend began operations.
2012: A third EmX line to west Eugene was approved—but only after much vocal opposition
and BEST came together to support the project.40, 41
38 “The purpose of the MovingAhead project is to: Develop a Capital Improvements Program that forecasts
and matches projected revenues and capital needs over a 10-year period. …
“The need for the MovingAhead project is based on the following factors: LTD’s and the region’s
commitment to implementing the region’s vision for bus rapid transit in the next 20 years consistent with the
RTP that provide the best level of transit service in a cost effective and sustainable manner. …”
See “Preliminary Purpose and Need, Goals and Objectives,” MovingAhead, October 16, 2015,
http://www.movingahead.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/MovingAhead-PNGO-20151016.pdf.
39 TSI Transit Policy #2: Bus Rapid Transit, TransPlan, LCOG, July 2002,
https://www.lcog.org/564/Regional-Transportation-Planning.
40 “Rabid Transit: The drive toward West 11th EmX heats up,” Eugene Weekly, September 13, 2012,
http://www.eugeneweekly.com/2012/09/13/rabid-transit/.
41 “LTD Board approves west Eugene EmX by 5-1,” Register-Guard, October 9, 2019,
http://projects.registerguard.com/rg/news/local/28869579-75/emx-eugene-board-west-ltd.html.csp.
Exhibit 5
Page 135 of 290
The line has now been operating successfully for over two years.42, 43
2014: LTD recognized the region did not necessarily need some arbitrary level of
infrastructure, e.g., Bronze, Silver or Gold Standard BRT,44 but rather the most appropriate
combination of infrastructure, vehicles and technologies to provide frequent transit service
along major corridors: a Frequent Transit Network (FTN):45
Proposed Frequent Transit Network, Long-Range Transit Plan, LTD (2014).
42 “LTD delivers hustle to streets of bustle,” Register-Guard, September 17, 2017,
https://www.registerguard.com/rg/news/local/35958935-75/ltd-delivers-hustle-to-streets-of-
bustle.html.csp.
43 “West Eugene EmX off to brisk start,” Register-Guard, August 3, 2018,
https://www.registerguard.com/news/20180803/west-eugene-emx-off-to-brisk-start.
44 The Bus Rapid Transit Standard, Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, June 21, 2016,
https://www.itdp.org/library/standards-and-guides/the-bus-rapid-transit-standard/.
45 “What is the Frequent Transit Network?
“The community invests significant resources into the transit service provided by LTD. The purpose of the
Frequent Transit Network (FTN) is to leverage that investment by tying it to the density and other elements of
adjacent development.
“Characteristics of an FTN Corridor:
• Enables a well-connected network that provides regional circulation.
• Compatible with and supportive of adjacent urban design goals.
• Operates seven days a week in select corridors.
• Service hours are appropriate for the economic and social context of the area served.
• Coverage consists of at least 16-hours-a-day, and area riders trip origins or destinations are within
¼-mile-straight line distance.
• Average frequency of 15 minutes or better.
• Transit service is reliable and runs on schedule.
• Transit stations are high quality with amenities, including bicycle and pedestrian connections to
stations and end-of-trip facilities, such as bike parking and bike share.
“What is Bus Rapid Transit?
“Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is the highest level of service available within the FTN.
“BRT is a permanent, integrated system that uses buses or specialized vehicles on roadways or dedicated
lanes to efficiently transport passengers. BRT system elements (running ways, stations, vehicles, fare collection,
intelligent transportation systems, and branding elements) can easily be customized to community needs, and
result in more passengers and less congestion.”
See Long-Range Transit Plan, LTD, March 2014,
http://www.movingahead.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Long-Range-Transit-Plan-2014-03-Final.pdf.
Exhibit 5
Page 136 of 290
2017: The Central Lane MPO adopted the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the most
recent in a series of minor periodic updates to TransPlan. It calls for investing $400 million
(in 2016 dollars)—still subject to the same three conditions as in TransPlan—to construct
five additional EmX and five additional Enhanced Corridor lines in the FTN. “The actual
location and type of future FTN investments will be determined once detailed corridor
planning is undertaken.”46
But an analysis conducted in 2015 concluded that four corridors—18th Avenue, Bob Straub
Parkway, the Randy Papé Beltline Highway, and Valley River Center—would not be ready
for any level of capital investment in BRT, at least over the next 10 years.47
Today: LTD is on the verge of substantially realizing the FTN, looking to adopt a Transit
Tomorrow network and begin operating it as early as Fall 2020—using existing
infrastructure. Consultant Jarrett Walker explains that Transit Tomorrow will provide more
“useful” transit:48, 49
Transit Tomorrow Draft Network, LTD (August 2019).
46 2040 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), Central Lane MPO, May 2017,
https://www.lcog.org/564/Regional-Transportation-Planning.
47 Level 1 Screening Evaluation, MovingAhead, October 2015,
http://www.movingahead.org/project-library/.
48 The Transit Tomorrow Draft Network would simplify the transit network, provide service every
15 minutes or better on most routes, provide more evening and weekend service, and for many but not all
people provide access to more places within a reasonable travel time. See Transit Tomorrow Draft Network
Plan, LTD, available in the board packet, August 21, 2019, https://www.ltd.org/file_viewer.php?id=3825.
See also Transit Tomorrow, LTD, https://www.ltd.org/transit-tomorrow/.
49 See also “Abundant access: Jarrett Walker on freedom through transit,” TREC, September 9, 2014,
https://trec.pdx.edu/news/abundant_access_jarrett_walker_on_freedom_through_transit.
Exhibit 5
Page 137 of 290
2. A New Vision for Transportation Safety

The City of Eugene finds that the health and safety of residents are the utmost priority.
2015: The City of Eugene adopted the Vision Zero goal of no deaths or life-changing injuries
on our streets, especially for the most vulnerable people walking, bicycling or using mobility
devices.50
2019: The City Manager administratively adopted the Vision Zero Action Plan, which calls for
“build[ing] capital safety infrastructure improvements along the Vision Zero High Crash
Network each year”:51, 52
High Crash Network, Vision Zero Action Plan, City of Eugene (2019).
50 Resolution No. 5143, City of Eugene, November 18, 2015,
https://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenter/View/27858/VisionZeroRes5143.
51 Vision Zero Action Plan, City of Eugene, March 29, 2019, https://www.eugene-or.gov/4270/Vision-Zero.
52 See also the lists of projects in the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, City of Eugene, March 2012,
https://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenter/View/5566/Eugene-PedestrianBicycle-Master-Plan---2012.
Exhibit 5
Page 138 of 290
Also in 2019, LTD’s Pedestrian Network Analysis identified a dozen “areas where pedestrian
infrastructure improvements are likely to most effectively address the needs of seniors,
people with disabilities, the economically disadvantaged, and school children; make existing
transit customers’ walking trips safer, more direct, and comfortable; improve pedestrian
safety and comfort through design and operations; attract new transit and walking trips; and
leverage other public and private investments”:53
Focus Areas, Pedestrian Network Analysis, LTD (2019).
3. A Fuzzy Vision for Compact Urban Development

The City of Eugene envisions compact urban development along six Key Corridors:
West 11th Avenue, Highway 99, River Road, Coburg Road, Franklin Boulevard and
South Willamette Street. But today this vision is a work in progress, still awaiting more
detailed planning and the adoption of needed land use changes to realize.
2012: The City Manager recommended basing Envision Eugene on seven pillars, including
one to “promote compact urban development and efficient transportation options.”54
53 Pedestrian Network Analysis, LTD, January 2019,
https://www.ltd.org/transit-tomorrow-document-library/.
54 “The Envision Eugene Pillars,” City of Eugene, March 2012,
https://www.eugene-or.gov/2979/The-Pillars.
Exhibit 5
Page 139 of 290
In particular, the City Manager identified six Key Transit Corridors and recommended
integrating "new development and redevelopment in the downtown, … in core commercial
areas, … and on Key Transit Corridors:”55, 56
Envision Eugene Community Vision, including Key (Transit) Corridors, City of Eugene (2019).
Key (Transit) Corridors are defined as “streets that have, or are planned to have, frequent
transit service (approximately every 15 minutes or less). This frequent transit service is
often accompanied by nearby amenities such as parks, commercial attractions or
employment centers, and higher density housing that enable shorter trips and less reliance
on the automobile.”57
2017: The City of Eugene adopted the 2035 Transportation System Plan. The plan includes
four transit policies, including one most relevant to MovingAhead:58
Collaborate with Lane Transit District to provide a network of high capacity,
frequent, and reliable transit services, including consideration of Bus Rapid
Transit, to the Key Corridors as identified in Envision Eugene, A Community
Vision for 2032 (2012) and to Frequent Transit Corridors as defined by Lane
Transit District’s Long-Range Transit Plan.
55 “Housing Tools & Strategies Deliberative Framing,” City of Eugene, November 9, 2018,
https://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenter/View/43573/Housing-Tools-and-Strategies-Working-Group--
-Options-for-Consideration---110918.
56 See also “Key Transit Corridors” (map), City of Eugene, March 20, 2012,
https://www.eugene-or.gov/DocumentCenter/View/5248/MAP-KeyTransitCorridors.
57 Envision Eugene, A Community Vision for 2032, City of Eugene, March 14, 2012,
https://www.eugene-or.gov/1863/March-2012-Recommendation.
58 The other three transit policies are:
1. Promote the use of public transit and the continued development of an integrated, reliable,
regional public transportation system.
Exhibit 5
Page 140 of 290
To date, the City of Eugene has looked in greater detail at three of the six Key (Transit)
Corridors: Franklin Boulevard is the subject of the current Franklin Boulevard
Transformation project, which is slated to come before the Eugene City Council this fall to
approve a preferred alternative.59 South Willamette Street was the subject of the South
Willamette Area Plan effort, but the Eugene City Council withdrew the land use application
in 2017.60, 61 River Road is currently the subject of the River Road Corridor Study.62, 63
But the other three Key (Transit) Corridors—West 11th Avenue, Highway 99 and Coburg
Road—have not yet been the subjects of detailed land use planning efforts.
The 2035 Transportation System Plan also includes a “Complete Streets Policy”: 64
Design, construct, maintain, and operate all streets to provide comprehensive
and integrated transportation networks that serve people of all ages and
abilities, promote commerce, and support the comprehensive land use plan’s
vision for growth and development in a responsible and efficient manner. …
Finally, the 2035 Transportation System Plan includes this potential action for system-wide
policies:
Align the City’s land use and parking regulations to encourage walking, biking,
and use of public transit; more efficient use of land; and lower transportation
and housing costs while accommodating the growth and economic prosperity
espoused by the comprehensive land use plan.
2. Prioritize improved transit service in Key Corridors and other areas with sufficient employment,
activities, or residential density that best support transit service and transit services that connect
residents to employment centers. If operational funding is sufficient, extend transit to support
higher density housing and employment development planned for other areas.
3. Align transit services with community needs by engaging the broader community in determining
the role transit service will play in Eugene’s future; creating strategies that leverage capital
investment to deliver the desired services and facilities; and identifying and pursuing the most
effective, stable, and equitable sources of local funding for transit operations.
See 2035 Transportation System Plan, City of Eugene, February 2017,
https://www.eugene-or.gov/3941/Transportation-System-Plan.
59 “Franklin Boulevard Transformation,” City of Eugene,
https://www.eugene-or.gov/3830/Franklin-Boulevard.
60 “South Willamette Area Plan,” City of Eugene,
https://www.eugene-or.gov/2675/South-Willamette-Area-Plan.
61 See also “South Willamette Street Improvement Plan,” City of Eugene,
https://www.eugene-or.gov/2055/South-Willamette-Street-Improvement-Plan.
62 “River Road Corridor Study,” City of Eugene, https://www.eugene-or.gov/4110/Corridor-Study.
63 See also the larger “River Road-Santa Clara Neighborhood Plan,” City of Eugene,
https://www.eugene-or.gov/3558/River-Road---Santa-Clara-Neighborhood-Pl.
64 2035 Transportation System Plan, City of Eugene, February 2017,
https://www.eugene-or.gov/3941/Transportation-System-Plan.
Exhibit 5
Page 141 of 290
From: Andrew Martin <Andrew.Martin@ltd.org>

To: jesstuerk@gmail.com
Cc: questions@movingahead.org
Dear Jess,
Thank you for taking the time to provide a comment on the MovingAhead project. Your participation in this project is
important to the City of Eugene and Lane Transit District (LTD) and we recognize the necessity of having local decision
makers aware of all the input received. All comments received by November 4, 2019 at 5:00 p.m., will be shared with
both the Eugene City Council and LTD Board of Directors. These comments will help inform which corridor options are
most desired by community members and what package of transportation investments for near‐term implementation
(within 10 years) best meet the project goals and have community support. All of the comments that we receive will
inform the committees that make recommendations to our decision‐makers – the Eugene City Council and LTD Board of
Directors – who will make the final decision about which corridor options are implemented.
Changes to Route 28 are not proposed as part of MovingAhead. You may, however, be interested in a separate LTD
project that may result in changes to that route. Transit Tomorrow is taking a deep look at LTD’s current bus system and
asking two important questions: (1) How can LTD help people get to where they are going?; and, (2) What shape should
LTD's services take in the future? This project will combine technical analysis and broad‐based community input to
answer these questions and to develop a public transit network for the future. I encourage you to get involved in the
Transit Tomorrow project at https://www.ltd.org/Transit‐Tomorrow/.
I will forward your comment to the manager of the Transit Tomorrow project.
Sincerely,
Andrew Martin
Development Planner
P: 541‐682‐6116
From: Jess Roshak <jesstuerk@gmail.com>
From: Jess Roshak <jesstuerk@gmail.com>
Message:
Good morning,
Exhibit 5
Page 142 of 290
What would be the most useful way for me to express my extreme opposition to the cutting of the #28 bus line that
wraps East and West Amazon? I understand it is likely to be cut in the next year or two. Which "package" would I want
to support if I don't want service in SE Eugene cut? Please advise which persons or meetings it would be best to make a
public comment. Thank you!
Jess Roshak
Relevant Corridors:
Contact Options:
Exhibit 5
Page 143 of 290
From: Jessica Snyder-Contreras <jsnyderc@uoregon.edu>

Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2019 6:20 PM
From: Jessica Snyder‐Contreras <jsnyderc@uoregon.edu>
Message:
Hello! I am a political science and planning/public policy major at the University of Oregon. I am taking a community
leadership class that involves interviewing a local leader about a topic that personally affects me and my peers. Eugene
is the first city I've lived in with an effective public transport system and active community engagement. I'm interested if
there is anyone who has been involved with planning the MovingAhead project who would be willing to speak with me
about the new transportation efforts and what it's like leading a movement in a city like Eugene.
I'd really appreciate an email back!
Thank you,
Jessica
Relevant Corridors:
Contact Options:
Exhibit 5
Page 144 of 290
From: Emma <questions@movingahead.org>

Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 6:55 AM
Name:Emma
Organization:
Email: emma.newman@gmail.com
Phone: 503‐724‐4134
Comments:
Package C or Package D. Invest first in River Road EmX as next major capital project, including much needed safety
improvements.
Exhibit 5
Page 145 of 290
From: Sue Wolling <questions@movingahead.org>

Name:Sue Wolling
Organization:
Email: sue.wolling@gmail.com
Phone: 5413452110
Comments:
The Investment Package that is right is simply whatever will do the most to use available funds most effectively to
increase transit ridership to the levels called for in the Transportation System Plan and support the compact urban
development called for in Envision Eugene. The question of whether it is EmX or some sort of Enhanced Corridor is less
important than whether people will use the system to get where they need to go. Empty buses, no matter whether
they’re green or white, or whether they come every 10 minutes or every 15 minutes, will not help us “Move Ahead”.
I support “Enhanced Corridors”, but the enhancements should be considered broadly as whatever it takes to move us
toward the community goals we have already adopted in the Climate Recovery Ordinance, Envision Eugene, the
Transportation System Plan and Vision Zero. If you can get the ridership up and demonstrate that transit really is a
viable option, you will have created enough community support to extend EmX if it becomes necessary. In the
meantime, the priority is ridership, not engineering.
Exhibit 5
Page 146 of 290

To: mikesshopping@yahoo.com
Dear Michael,
Sincerely,
Andrew Martin
Development Planner
P: 541‐682‐6116
From: Michael Jungjohann <mikesshopping@yahoo.com>
From: Michael Jungjohann <mikesshopping@yahoo.com>
Message:
Exhibit 5
Page 147 of 290
I’ve heard the 28 bus route might be cut. This is an essential route used by people in south Eugene. I hope this service
will remain.
Relevant Corridors:
Contact Options:
Exhibit 5
Page 148 of 290
From: Keli Osborn <action@lwvlc.org>

Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 8:16 AM
Cc: Jeanne L Taylor; treasurer@lwvlc.org
Subject: Testimony: Transportation options--MovingAhead
Attachments: LWVLC MovingAhead Oct 2019.doc
Mayor Lucy Vinis, Council President Betty Taylor
& Members of the Eugene City Council
Board President Carl Yeh
& Members of the Lane Transit District Board of Directors
The League of Women Voters of Lane County appreciates the extensive process that has brought the City Council and
the LTD Board to this decision point on MovingAhead transportation options. We submit the attached testimony. League
members have attended many briefings, meetings and open houses, and first commented on MovingAhead four years
ago. We’ve studied the options before you. Our written testimony details our position.
Thank you for your service, and for considering our comments in your decision‐making.
Gary Harmon, Keli Osborn, Jeanne Taylor
Executive Committee, League of Women Voters of Lane County
Exhibit 5
Page 149 of 290
Oct. 17, 2019
Re: MovingAhead investments
Mayor Lucy Vinis, Council President Betty Taylor

& Members of the Eugene City Council
Board President Carl Yeh
& Members of the Lane Transit District Board of Directors
The League of Women Voters of Lane County appreciates the extensive process that has
brought the City Council and the LTD Board to this decision point. League members have
attended many briefings, meetings and open houses, and first commented on MovingAhead
four years ago. We’ve studied the options before you. Having reviewed the general
descriptions and recognizing that many decisions remain, we make a qualified
recommendation for Package C, EmX on River Road, with other enhancements on other
corridors to benefit all who use our streets.
MovingAhead does not exist in isolation. Corridors studied for transit infrastructure
improvement do not align with key corridors identified by Envision Eugene for increased
development. There seems to be a slight dissonance between the packages and stated goals
of the project: that “multi-modal transit corridors are consistent with patterns of growth
and development anticipated by local comprehensive land use and transportation plans,
helping our region grow efficiently and effectively." (from the MovingAhead home page)
The most notable omission from the MovingAhead study process is Franklin Boulevard, a
key corridor and the subject of the Franklin Boulevard Transformation Project from Alder
Avenue to the I-5 bridge. Since MovingAhead began more than four years ago, rapid
development has occurred along Franklin, and we now know how creating two lanes for
EmX along the length of the corridor is necessary to capture the potential offered by the
service and to meet service demand. That investment should be prioritized along with
other MovingAhead investments.
The 30th Avenue-to-Lane Community College corridor seems the opposite of Franklin
Boulevard; it is included in MovingAhead, but is not a key development corridor in
Envision Eugene. We conclude that investing in more transit infrastructure between
Hilyard and LCC is not necessary at this time. The downtown-to-Amazon Station
improvements, however, would provide many benefits and should be implemented.
Exhibit 5
Page 150 of 290
The Highway 99 corridor has the potential to serve those metro-area residents having
among the fewest transportation options. Finding ways to deliver more transit service and
safety improvements to the area should be a high priority.
Improvements on Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard are primarily between Coburg Road
and Centennial Loop. That short area is undoubtedly congested, but referring to these
improvements as "MLK, Jr. Boulevard” may mislead people into thinking investments are
planned along that wide, stop sign-free boulevard.
The Coburg Road corridor seems to present the most serious dilemmas. We recommend
you consider this corridor as a separate project. It already is densely developed. Transit
improvements are considered as part of the solution to congestion, but further
infrastructure development will require cooperation and assistance from property and
business owners, as well as nearby residents.
River Road offers the greatest opportunity for EmX to achieve the stated goals of
MovingAhead. There’s neighborhood interest in a connected, efficient, affordable and
equitable multi-modal transportation system that is safe and future-oriented. It’s a key
development corridor identified in Envision Eugene. The River Road Corridor Study and
neighborhood planning efforts are nearing completion in early 2020. MovingAhead
analysis indicates the potential for significant time savings and safety improvements with
EmX, compared to regular bus service. This could be the opportune time to create EmX
service before the corridor is developed further.
LTD’s community outreach for the MovingAhead and Transit Tomorrow initiatives tells us
that increased service equals increased ridership. Because new funds from the passage of
HB2017 provide transit with flexibility for spending on service or infrastructure, the
League is concerned that spending such resources to improve infrastructure could result in
inadequate funding for service. Finding the right balance is critical.
Our primary caution is that investment considerations be made in concert with other plans,
including Envision Eugene and Transit Tomorrow. This decision point represents an
opportunity to take a look at the transit system as a whole and determine how it fits the
community—and how transit investments can help support our community in the future.
Thank you for your service, and for considering the League's comments in your decision-
making.
Sincerely,
Gary Harmon, Keli Osborn, Jeanne Taylor

Executive Committee, LWVLC
Exhibit 5
Page 151 of 290
From: Terri Berling <berlingterri@gmail.com>

From: Terri Berling <berlingterri@gmail.com>
Message:
Hello. I recently heard that the bus routes on East and West Amazon in SE Eugene might be eliminated. I hope this is
not true unless there is a good plan to replace that public transportation. I live in SE Eugene, and one of the factors in
my choice to live here was the nearby bus route. Please make sure we continue to have good, affordable public
transportation in SE Eugene on E and W Amazon down to Nectar way, at least. Thank you. Respectfully, Terri Berling
Relevant Corridors:
Contact Options:
I would like to receive email updates
Exhibit 5
Page 152 of 290
From: Alice Davenport <questions@movingahead.org>

Name:Alice Davenport
Organization: I am member 3 groups with transporation focus.See Below
Email: aadavenport@yahoo.com
Phone:
Comments:
I am member of 3 local groups that focus on transportation issues
(1) Friendly Area Neighborhood (FAN) Transportation team
(2) Observer/advisor to Better Eugene Springfield Trans. (BEST)
(3) League of Women Voters Lane County.
**I support the recommendations of the League of Women Voters[LWV] (per Oct. 17 letter to Mayor & other
officials)***
Note: LWV and BEST recommendations seem similar. I believe that both support Franklin Corridor as #1 priority.
However, LWV favors EmX on River Road while BEST seems to emphasize enhanced treatment on all corridor.
Exhibit 5
Page 153 of 290

To: dhaas33@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Fwd: MovingAhead Website Contact Form Message
Dear Dianne,
Sincerely,
Andrew Martin
Development Planner
P: 541-682-6116
-----Original Message-----
From: Diane Haas <dhaas33@gmail.com>
From: Diane Haas <dhaas33@gmail.com>
Message:
Exhibit 5
Page 154 of 290
I am writing regarding LTD’s proposed 2020-2022 service changes, specifically the elimination
of Route 28 which serves the Southeast Eugene/Amazon neighborhoods. This is the only bus that
serves this area, and is heavily used by University of Oregon students, faculty, and staff; South
Eugene High School students; Roosevelt Middle School students; and other residents for school,
work, and appointments on a daily basis.
The report shared at the August 21, 2019 LTD Board Meeting discussing the “Transit
Tomorrow” program states: “57% of residents and 70% of jobs would be located within 1/2 mile
of a transit stop with frequent service.” This is completely false. The proposed system map
indicates that the closest stop to my house would be nearly two miles away. This walking
distance is possible for some of us, but it creates a major hardship for the elderly and disabled
that have no alternate means of transportation.
I ride the number 28 bus daily during the week to go to work. I do own a car but prefer to utilize
LTD for both financial and environmental reasons. LTD and the City of Eugene often state they
would like to reduce the number of cars on the streets. If these proposed changes are in fact
adopted, I, and many others in the Southeast Eugene/Amazon neighborhoods, would have no
choice but to drive our personal cars. This is entirely counterproductive to these grand designs
touted by the City and LTD.
I urge you to look carefully at the people you serve before making these kinds of decisions that
would be detrimental to the community.
Sincerely,
Diane Haas
4820 Whiteaker St.
Eugene, OR 97405
Relevant Corridors:
30th Avenue/LCC
Contact Options:
Exhibit 5
Page 155 of 290
From: John Lochner <questions@movingahead.org>

Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 11:12 AM
Name:John Lochner
Organization:
Email: johnl@noellesley.com
Phone: 3609019329
Comments:
I have not been able to obtain information regarding changes to property access for each of the options for Coburg
Road. Where can this information be found?
Please provide detailed information on the exact property that would be acquired from property owners on Coburg
Road for each option.
Will any of these options affect signage, lighting, etc. for existing property owners on Coburg Road.
thanks
Exhibit 5
Page 156 of 290
Andrew Martin
From: David Davini <DavidD@giustina.com>

To: lvinis@eugene-or.gov; esemple@eugene-or.gov; btaylor@eugene-or.gov;
azelenka@eugene-or.gov; jyeh@eugene-or.gov; mclark@eugene-or.gov;
gevans@eugene-or.gov; csyrett@eugene-or.gov; cpryor@eugene-or.gov; Steven Yett;
Carl Yeh; Don Nordin; Emily Secord; Joshua Skov; Caitlin Vargas; Kate Reid; Aurora
Jackson; Chris.Henry@eugene-or.gov; Andrew Martin; sarah Medary
(Sarah.J.Medary@ci.eugene.or.us)
Cc: Jenny Ulum; Jay Harland
Subject: [External Sender] Moving Ahead
Attachments: summaryMemo10_18_19.pdf
Dear Mayor, City Councilors and LTD Board members,
Please find attached CSA’S summary regarding the MovingAhead Alternatives Analysis. In March 2019 you were
provided a 12 page technical memo addressing some of CSA’s concerns with the project. After reading the 350+ page
Analysis as well as the March CSA review I was still confused about what exactly the Alternatives Analysis included. I
asked our consultant to summarize in one page or less the essentials of the study, which is attached. I thought that if I
was still confused about what was included in the Analysis that maybe others might also be confused. Please remember
all information reviewed or analyzed by CSA was provided in the Analysis. I hope you find the information useful. Thank
you.
David Davini
G Group, LLC
PO Box 529
Eugene, OR 97440
541‐465‐1600 |Davidd@ggroup.com
Exhibit 5
Page 157 of 290
Memorandum
CSA Planning, Ltd
4497 Brownridge, Suite 101
To: David Davini Medford, OR 97504
Telephone 541.779.0569
Date: October 17, 2019 Fax 541.779.0114
Subject: MovingAhead Jay@CSAplanning.net
You asked me to provide a brief summary memo of our review of the MovingAhead
Alternatives Analysis report. Our review was previously made available to the Eugene City
Council, Lane Transit District Board of Directors and their respective staffs. Our review and
findings were based on the data provided in the MovingAhead report.
‐ As a planning document, the MovingAhead analysis is incomplete1. The analysis fails
to evaluate how the goals and objectives set forth in the document will actually be
achieved by the millions of dollars spent on project construction and operations. Until
this critical step is satisfactorily completed, our professional opinion is that this
analysis should not be used as a basis to select investment alternatives that
require millions of dollars and years of operational commitments.
‐ For the past 10 years ridership on LTD has decreased by 29% from its peak. Despite
this trend, the MovingAhead analysis projects a 1.5% increase in annual ridership for
each of the next 20 years without any new investment. No meaningful explanation
for the planned trend reversal is given.
‐ The most expensive All-EmX package costs ~$331 million in local funds and would
add less than 9.5% in additional systemwide rides over the No-Build alternative.
‐ If the 1.5% average annual ridership increase projected under the No-Build turns
out be only slightly less (~1.2% per year), then the All-EmX alternative would not
result in any more rides than could be achieved without spending $331 million of
local resources.
‐ The MovingAhead consultant’s analysis shows that increases in GHG emissions from
the project are not offset by GHG emission savings from efficient transit. Regionally,
every EmX investment package fails to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
‐ Since sharing our review in March with both public entities we have received one
request for clarification which we responded to.
Separate but related observations concerning EmX ridership:
o CSA’s independent study of the Gateway line, conducted in 2015, found that the
Gateway EmX was utilizing less than 10% of its capacity and the ridership was 60%
less than projections (in some specific locations even much worse).
o The West 11th EmX line was projected to carry 7,399 people a week. It is actually
falling short by 57%, carrying 4,245 people a week according to an article in the
Eugene Register Guard.
As we have discussed, there are many technical issues that concern me about the
MovingAhead project but the above summary speaks for itself without requiring someone to
read and digest the 350-plus-page document. Please let me know if you have any additional
questions.
CSA Planning, Ltd.
_______________________________________
Jay Harland
President
1
The Alternatives Analysis is presented as following a standard planning process such as that explained in the
American Planning Association’s, “The Practice of State and Regional Planning”. The critical evaluation
steps (5&6) prior to policy action being taken (step 7), has not been completed.
Exhibit 5
Page 158 of 290
From: B Breaden <questions@movingahead.org>

Name:B Breaden
Organization:
Email: blbreaden@yahoo.com
Phone: 5416881660
Comments:
All of these corridors need improvement to facilitate access and minimize traffic obstructions. The Em‐X options provide
the most comprehensive service potential. Because so many social services are on Highway 99, heavily used by people
without cars, the 99 corridor should receive top priority in moving toward Em‐X.
Exhibit 5
Page 159 of 290
From: Robert Jorgensen <luo_da_long@hotmail.com>

Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2019 11:27 AM
Subject: Northwest Expressway
Something really needs to be done about the congestion on Northwest Expressway in the early morning
time(7-9am). Ever since the Idiot lights were installed on the on-ramps between River Road and Coburg Road.
A lot of the traffic trying to get onto Beltline has shifted over to Northwest Expressway to avoid the idiot lights.
On many a morning the traffic is backed up all the way to Irvington Dr. My suggestion is to widen Northwest
Expressway to 5 lanes (2 each way and center turn lane) and install lights at Beltline and at Maxwell Rd. It
would aid with congestion and reduce accidents
Exhibit 5
Page 160 of 290
From: Nicole rund <questions@movingahead.org>

Name:Nicole rund
Organization: Self
Email: gettinrudewiththefood@gmail.com
Phone: 602‐524‐0909
Comments:
Your website is very confusing. There is no easy way to tell what the 5 options are, unless you've been following the
process the whole time. Please lay out the 5 options a little better or at least give easy to see links to them.
My mother in law is 70 years old, is an avid rider of the ltd bus, it's her only mode of transportation but she doesn't ride
the bus after dark so she won't get to the meeting. She only gets the info from TV news, drivers, or bus riders.
She says she needs the bus system to stay the same and take no routes away. She lives off of oak patch rd/west 11th
and goes to Fred Meyer, Target, and Walmart mostly, but she doesn't want ltd to change. She likes that she can be
spontaneous and go to many things. They have been telling her that ride source can pick her up when she needs it, but
they cost a lot of money and she has to plan it weeks in advance.
Thanks!
Exhibit 5
Page 161 of 290
From: Ken Schmidt <questions@movingahead.org>

Name:Ken Schmidt
Organization: Windermere Real Estate
Email: kens@windermere.com
Phone: 541‐912‐2029
Comments:
First of all I would like to say I am pleased we have a bus transit system here in Lane County, however I am opposed at
this time to expand the services we have.
I have taken special note of all of the buses on the road and in different areas as I travel all of Eugene, Springfield in my
business.
My feeling is you are not filling up the buses that we have. I have watched in the Gateway area as well as West 11th and
on 6th st. in Eugene. I see so many empty buses throughout the day and not just one but one after the other. For
example on West 11th the other day I noticed an Emx bus followed by a regular bus then a double bus, all empty. Then
in the Gateway area it is very common to see empty buses traveling on Gateway street then past the hospital with no
passengers on them. Folks this is not just once a day this happens several times a day in all areas.
Why is your dispatcher not catching this!!! They have passenger counts!!! You are not spending public money wisely so
why should I allow you to purchase more buses to expand into other areas. We are saturated with buses now!!! Get a
grip, there is not a bucket full of money.
I understand that by the campus you may need this buses more that is an exception however your dispatcher needs to
review the counts and cut back on the number of times the buses are running thru these areas. Does your dispatcher
not know how to do this?
NO MORE BUSES UNTIL YOU CUT SERVICES AND FILL UP THE EXISTING BUSES!!!!!
Thank You
Exhibit 5
Page 162 of 290
From: Kip Anderson <kipa@kipanderson.net>

To: questions@movingahead.Org
Subject: Proposed routes and issues
I am a strong supporter of improving mass transit with more buses serving more locations, and I believe that LTD is
moving the right direction to streamline on the street operations. As somebody who relied upon the bus line on River
Rd. for several months, I found it to be reasonably priced and convenient ‐ but that was only because the buses stopped
within 1000 feet of my home and my destination at work without the time sucking hassle of a downtown transfer.
On the average day, it only added 10 minutes to my commute, which is time I happily used to read or watch youtube,
etc., but that is a pipe dream to imagine doing where I live now near I‐5 Just 300 feet off of MLK. The nearest stop
headed the right direction is 3/4 mile away and would involve a downtown transfer. The walk alone adds 20 minutes to
my commute, never mind the downtown wait. That is wholly unacceptable on a round trip basis, adding nearly an hour
to how much time I would spend walking, waiting, and riding, when I can cover the same commute in my car in only 15
minutes.
My point is that IF the MLK route is to be expanded, it MUST include more stops to have value to a larger segment of
riders, because as of right now for my needs, riding a bicycle is still faster by half. It is a laughable inconvenience to have
to use LTD from my location, making it the last resort ahead of walking the entire distance.
Kip C. Anderson
3650 Wylie Creek Pl, Eugene
Exhibit 5
Page 163 of 290
From: Jeff Robinson <questions@movingahead.org>

Name:Jeff Robinson
Organization: GJ Investments Inc.
Email: gj.invest@gmail.com
Phone: 5419143217
Comments:
Let's use these dollars where it will save more lives!
EmX service might make sense for the highest users of EmX ‐ Students and the disabled ‐ in the MLK corridor, and
possibly River Road. Especially since those two corridors have poor alternatives when traffic is congested there.
But it makes no economic sense along the Coburg Road corridor. The huge eminent domain costs would be better spent
where our BIGGEST traffic and safety problem is in all of Eugene ‐‐ BELT‐LINE near Delta Hwy. It does not seem to be in
the public's best interest to pursue hundreds of millions of dollars for EmX in other corridors before giving the highest
priority to funding expanded capacity along Belt Line! More accidents and lives will be saved per dollar spent there than
through Emx expansion.
Furthermore, EmX will never meaningfully mitigate the traffic woes over the Ferry Street Bridge or along Belt Line,
because it will only reduce the # of cars/minute by 5‐9 vehicles. That's a drop in the bucket!
So, while Rep. Defazio is serving as Chair of the House Transportation Committee, now is the time to funnel dollars to
projects that will save lives and avoid accidents. Let's fix our biggest traffic woe ‐ Belt Line!!! How many more accidents
will occur if we delay another 10‐20 years?
Now is our best chance to do so! Let's not squander our greatest opportunity to fix Eugene!
Thank you!
Exhibit 5
Page 164 of 290
From: John Keana <questions@movingahead.org>

Name:John Keana
Organization:
Email: jkeana@uoregon.edu
Phone: 5413455893
Comments:
I do not support ANY extensions of EmX service beyond what Eugene has already. Regular buses are the most cost‐
effective way to go, They stop frequently and are convenient for shoppers and do not require walking several blocks
from the EmX stop to the retail business. They do not require dreadfully expensive and inconvenient dedicated lanes.
You are proposing to spend up to 0.3 billion dollars! There is associated loss of parking along the proposed corridors,
narrowing or elimination of existing traffic lane, disruption of businesses owing to construction, eminent domain issues,
etc. all to "save" a few minutes, not counting the walking if the stop is blocks from where the rider wants to go. Just
because you may be able to attract federal and/or state funding doesn't mean that it is a wise expenditure of funds‐‐it is
NOT. When ridership demands, simply increase the number and frequency of regular buses. Create more bus turn‐outs
so traffic is not impeded when a bus stops.
Exhibit 5
Page 165 of 290
From: HENRY Chris C <CHenry@eugene-or.gov>

To: questions@movingahead.org; MARTIN Andrew (SMTP); HARDING Terri L
Cc: MovingAheadProject (MovingAheadProject@ltd.org)
Subject: FW: MovingAhead testimony
Attachments: River Road Cooridor Plan Sept 21 2019.docx
Flag Status: Flagged
Terri,
This testimony relates to the River Road corridor study.
Thanks,
Chris
Christopher C. Henry, PE
Transportation Planning Engineer
City of Eugene Public Works – Engineering | 99 E Broadway, Suite 400, Eugene, OR 97401‐3174
p 541.682.8472
w eugene‐or.gov/transportation
From: CASADOS Cas M <CCasados@eugene‐or.gov>
To: HENRY Chris C <CHenry@eugene‐or.gov>
Subject: Fw: MovingAhead testimony
And another...
Cas
________________________________________
From: Dennis Sandow <dennissandow5@gmail.com>
To: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager
Subject: MovingAhead testimony
[EXTERNAL ]
Good Afternoon,
I am submitting my testimony asking for an immediate suspension of the River Road Corridor Project. By now it should
be occurring to you, that by investing in development plans with no social service component to the plan, our growth
has required that fire, police and emergency services respond to social issues such as homelessness, poverty, drug use,
teenage suicide and domestic abuse. I have been a planner for Lane County and Deschutes County and have seen
Exhibit 5
Page 166 of 290
Oregon’s Guidelines for citizen involvement all but ignored.
The attached letter is my testimony for tonights meeting. Please confirm receipt of this email by replying.
Thank you
Dennis Sandow
123 Fir Lane
Eugene, Oregon 97404
Exhibit 5
Page 167 of 290
Eugene Neighborhood Leaders Council
River Road Community Organization
Santa Clara Community Organization
Eugene City Council Member Claire Syrett
Mayor Vinis
LTD Board of Directors
LTD General Manager Aurora Jackson
September 21 2019
The River Road Corridor Project (RRCP) part of the MovingAhead project be suspended
until the following deficiencies are addressed.
1. Planning for the Ruth Bascom bike path. The Ruth Bascom bike path offers people
without homes, people with mobility support needs, pedestrians, cyclists and an
increasing number of electric wheelchairs, scooter and bicycles connections to the
city. It also offers the poor access to the greenway without which public health
research shows increases in ill mental and physical health. It also connects several
community gardens and urban farms. Any publicly funded project claiming to be
sustainable would address the future of the bike path. To date, RRCP has not.
2. Lanes defining the quality of River Road and Whiteaker. Lanes are narrow passages
from the City to the Willamette River. Many do not have sidewalks. But this does not
threaten the safety of pedestrians, cyclists or folks with alternative mobility needs.
That is because lanes have social equity meaning that pedestrians, cyclists,
motorists and people with alternative mobility needs all share equal access. To date,
RRCP has not addressed how the existing lanes will be left as they are.
3. Citizen involvement and the exclusion of Whiteaker neighbors from the RRCP. I
wrote Sasha Luftig requesting a copy of the grant funding the RRCP on May 8 and
then again on September 9 2019. As of today, I have not received a reply.
More concerning is the fact that Whiteaker neighbors living on Fir Lane, Lombard
Lane and E Briarcliff Lane have not been given the opportunity to participate in the
RRCP. While the RRCO and SCCO have been involved in all aspects of the RRCP, the
WCC has not. An alternative process was presented to Mr Brown that would address
the unique characteristics of the Whiteaker neighbors living there (Attachment A).
He replied that after consult with others in the city, they had not time for a 2 hour
meeting with neighbors there Attachment B). This was after City Manager Jon Ruiz
had these comments about the small neighborhood:
“I appreciated the gathering with your neighbors and was reminded of the
richness of individual and collective stories that define the sense of place in a
neighborhood – more so then the physical space. Not all neighborhoods share
Exhibit 5
Page 168 of 290
the social capital that flows through your neighborhood, and the challenge, it
seems to me, is to find ways to continue and refresh the threads as change
occurs. I learned that the caring and commitment, as articulated through the
stories, has sustained the sense of place in your neighborhood for decades.”
The RRCP has not addressed the challenge to conserve the unique social capital in
that neighborhood. Nor has the RRCP met the criteria set forth by the IAP2,
something they claim to have accomplished.
4. Unacceptable social impact for evaluating the RRCP. The RRCP will evaluate these social
impacts (Jan 2019 draft):
The social issues in the RRCP include people without homes, hunger, poverty, substance
abuse, crime, refugee status and teenage suicide to name a few. With a planned
increase from population growth these social issues will grow proportionately. If we do
not plan to address these issues they will grow. The RRCP does not include these high
priority issues in its evaluation.
Projects such as the RRCP become proposed investments for the future. The source for
resources the public. Hence, until the deficiencies (as we have partially listed) are addressed by
the RRCP we request the project be terminated or postponed until the deficiencies are
addressed.
Sincerely,
Dennis Sandow
Exhibit 5
Page 169 of 290
Attachment A Email from Dennis Sandow to Eric Brown asking for
inclusion of Fir, Lombard and EBriarcliff Lanes in the RRCP.
Eric Brown
Associate Planner
99 W. 10th Avenue
Eugene, OR 97401
March 26, 2019
Hello Eric
Thank you for accepting this request for conducting a planning session with the residents of Fir
Lane, Lombard Lane and East Briarcliff Lane. It is a testament to your commitment to citizen
involvement.
There are two reasons for making this request.
1. Most of the residents living in this neighborhood are in the jurisdiction of the Whiteaker
Community Council. The WCC has not be involved in the River Road Corridor study even
though they are directly in the corridor itself.
2. The Fir-Lombard-E Briarcliff neighborhood has developed unique social services for
those with physical challenges who require mobility devices ranging from electric
powered wheel chairs to walkers.
The request.
1. We request that a brief (1.5-2 hour) planning session be conducted by asking two
questions.
a. How do residents care for those with physical challenges, senior citizens and
those needing affordable housing?
b. What would the neighbors like to conserve in the neighborhood in the future?
2. We request that Fir, Lombard and E Briarcliff, with a history of no accidents for over 20
years, be evaluated as a woonerf1. This will be fun! Our neighbor, Emery has told me
that he is happy to give you a ride on his famous limo – the “cosmic limo of the Country
Fair”. This will result in you seeing the world of transportation through human powered
non-auto perspectives and how efficient the bike network is in connecting people with
mobility devices to the city.
3. Finally, we request that the planning be aimed implementing the empower process of
the Public Participation Spectrum
1
A woonerf is designed to allow drivers, cyclists, pedestrians and runners to share the same space, making the street much more welcoming
and appealing for all. Instead of dividing a street with barriers like curbs, sidewalks and bike lanes, woonerfs open up the street and allow
for every use simultaneously.
Exhibit 5
Page 170 of 290
The value to the city.
1. Improve the River Road Corridor planning process by including us in the study. We all
have talked about our neighborhood being the isthmus between River Road and the
Willamette River and planning without representation can destroy the character of our
neighborhood. This would also result in including the WCC neighbors in the RRCS
planning.
2. Innovate in micro-planning in two important process improvements.
a. Apply a proven process for assessing social capital to address the social impacts
of planning and development. The RRCS does not include adequate processes for
understanding what is most important to our community – social impact.
Impacts such as homelessness, substance abuse, theft and public health2 have
not been included in the discussion. ECONorthwest may appear to be a proxy,
but economics is not a valid indicator for social wellbeing.
This innovation will bring urban planning in line with Oregon’s greatest health
priority in improving upon health equities.
b. Focus on conservation instead of change. In a conversation I had with a county

manager some time ago, I was told that it cost his agency $80,000 to respond to
a neighborhood’s resistance to a proposed project. So why the resistance from
those that entrust well educated planning professionals to plan the future of our
cities?
c. Human centric transportation innovation. If you do come and accept Emery’s

invitation for him to take you for a ride on his limo, you will begin to see the bike
path as a network connecting people using mobility devices to the city. This
innovation is a significant contribution to the cities response to climate change
and greenhouse gas reduction.
People do not resist change. They resist being changed.
Instead of focusing on change, this innovation will demonstrate that there is

greater value and engagement to tax paying citizens by asking them about
conserving the wellbeing in their neighborhood. When this approach is taken,
2
Research has demonstrated that inequitable access to green space can relate to health disparities or
inequalities. This commentary aims to shift the dialogue to initiatives that have integrated green spaces in
projects that may promote health equity in the United States. Specifically, we connect this topic to factors
such as community revitalization, affordable housing, neighborhood walkability, food security, job creation,
and youth engagement.
Exhibit 5
Page 171 of 290
tax payers engaged in the change, knowing that it will not have deleterious
impacts on where they have chosen to spend their futures.
I hoped that this request was adequate. Please let me know if it is not and I will be happy
to quickly reply.
Very best
Dennis Sandow
Exhibit 5
Page 172 of 290
Attachment B Eric Brown’s response to Dennis Sandow’s request
Hi Denis,
I spoke with a few of my colleagues about your request.
Unfortunately at this time, the Planning Division does not have capacity to take on a separate planning process for
your neighborhood. In order to best serve your community, I'd encourage you to continue participating in both the
River Road - Santa Clara Neighborhood Plan and the River Road Corridor Study. There is a meeting Wednesday
evening for the neighborhood plan at North Eugene High School (https://www.eugene-or.gov/3667/Get-Involved), and
an ongoing survey about the corridor (https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/RR_Corridor). We will have another corridor
focused workshop in early June. If you are on our neighborhood plan email list (https://www.eugene-
or.gov/3698/Newsletters), you will get the information.
Of course, the long-range planning team's workplan is largely dictated by Council. It is by Council direction that we
are working with River Road and Santa Clara Community Organizations on their neighborhood plan. If you would like
to see similar resources dedicated to your neighborhood, I would recommend advocating for that with Council
through the WCC.
I also want to share with you that I am transitioning out of my role on the RRSC Plan to take on a position downtown.
I am excited about the opportunity, but sad to leave the neighborhood planning project.
Let me know if you have any questions,
Eric
Exhibit 5
Page 173 of 290
From: beverly barr <bkb@epud.net>

From: beverly barr <bkb@epud.net>
Message:
As a long‐time resident of the River Road neighborhood, I am writing to urge support for EmX on River Road. The timing
is perfect as we develop our Neighborhood Plan. The Plan will guide the future of the River and Garden District of
Eugene. EmX is a vital piece in realizing the potential of River Road.and the surrounding streets and neighborhoods.
Thank you!
Relevant Corridors:
River Road
Contact Options:
Exhibit 5
Page 174 of 290

To: questions@movingahead.org; MARTIN Andrew (SMTP)
Subject: FW: Written Testimony for October 21st Hearing between LTD & City Council
Attachments: Ridership_10_21_19.pdf
From: RODRIGUES Matt J <MRodrigues@eugene‐or.gov>
To: INERFELD Rob <RInerfeld@eugene‐or.gov>; HENRY Chris C <CHenry@eugene‐or.gov>
Subject: FW: Written Testimony for October 21st Hearing between LTD & City Council
FYI
Thank you,
Matt Rodrigues, P.E.
AIC Public Works Director
City of Eugene
Ph: 541‐682‐6877
mrodrigues@eugene‐or.gov
From: Nathan Emerson <Nathan@csaplanning.net>
To: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager <MayorCouncilandCityManager@eugene‐or.gov>
Subject: Written Testimony for October 21st Hearing between LTD & City Council
[EXTERNAL ]
Hello,
I have something that I’d like to submit for the record to tonight’s joint public hearing on the MovingAhead project. I am
seeking clarification of the ridership numbers for the all EmX and all Enhanced Corridor that have been presented at
previous joint study sessions.
I understand this will not be part of the packet because of the late submittal.
Thank you very much,
Nathan Emerson
Associate
CSA Planning Ltd.
Medford, Oregon 97504
(541) 779-0569
Exhibit 5
Page 175 of 290
Memorandum
CSA Planning, Ltd
To: Eugene City Council Medford, OR 97504
Telephone 541.779.0569
Date: October 18, 2019 Fax 541.779.0114
Subject: Ridership Projections for MovingAhead Nathan@CSAplanning.net
I respectfully request that MovingAhead staff clarify the annual increase in ridership
projected to be generated by the proposed investment packages.
After looking at the available materials from the July 15th joint work session between the
City Council and the LTD board, I am unable to recreate the ridership numbers presented for
each investment package. The ridership numbers are below, as presented in Attachment C
of the July 15 meeting packet:
Elsewhere in the document, an asterisk denotes the following ridership estimation

methodology:
Exhibit 5
Page 176 of 290
This seems quite reasonable given the changing nature of the investment packages.
However, using this methodology led to ridership estimates that were sometimes
substantially different (and negative) from the table presented in Attachment C.
To calculate the investment package ridership numbers, I used the corridor ridership
numbers provided in Attachment A of the July 15 packet, Alternatives Analysis Report
Executive Summary. Pages 11, 15, 19, 23, and 27 provide tables that include Systemwide
Annual Ridership Increase (compared to No-Build). The relevant pages have been
excerpted for ease of reference and attached to this memo. These appear to be the only
individual corridor ridership numbers provided in the packet and they match the numbers
from the full Alternatives Analysis.
Using these numbers, simple addition yielded the following increase in ridership for the
presented investment packages:
Estimated Ridership Increase

Package Ridership
Enhanced Corridor 363,000
Package C 576,000
Package D 771,000
Package E 927,000
EmX 1,155,000
Names have changed (today’s Package D was Modified Package C on July 15), but
ridership projections were congruent with those presented to City Council for only one
Package. After calculating these numbers, the two Packages that have been constant
through these proceedings do not have ridership numbers that match any other
documentation. The difference for the all EmX package is negative 172,000 riders annually,
or approximately 13% of the total expected annual ridership. The difference for the
Enhanced Corridor package is negative 26,000 riders annually, or approximately 7% of the
total expected annual ridership.
Without additional explanation from the MovingAhead team, the annual ridership numbers
presented to the joint session of the City Council and the LTD board (and the public) do not
appear to match the available documentation. It is in the public interest to ensure that
these numbers are presented accurately.
I am certain that the MovingAhead team, given the complexity of the project, can provide
an explanation for the ridership totals presented to elected officials. I look forward to the
clarification they provide.
Sincerely,
CSA Planning, Ltd.
_______________________________________
Nathan Emerson
Associate
Memorandum Page 2
Exhibit 5
Page 177 of 290
Highway 99 Corridor:
This map shows Comparison
the transit, bicycle, of investments
and pedestrian Alternatives
included in the
Highway 99 Enhanced Corridor Alternative. The table below provides a comparison
of this alternative with the No-Build and EmX Alternatives.
No-Build Enhanced EmX

Cost Corridor
Capital Cost $0.0M $38.0M $67.0M

Systemwide Annual Operating Cost
(Change from No-Build)
$0.0M -$0.1M $2.8M
Hwy 99
Transit Performance
In-Vehicle Transit Travel Time Savings 0 min 10 min 12 min

Systemwide Annual Ridership Increase
(Compared to No-Build) 0 111,000 267,000
sit Lane
Bicycling & Walking
New Bike/Ped Access and Safety Improvements
(1-5 rating)
Property & Development Impacts

Support Development and Redevelopment
usiness (1-5 rating)
sit Lane
Number of Medium and Large Trees Impacted 0 14 40
105
Number/Acreage of Acquisitions 0/0 44/1.3 38/1.6
Potential Property Displacements1 0 0 0

Parking Impacts: On-Street/Off-Street
(number of spaces) 0/0 0/50 0/53
Existing Jobs & Population Served
Jobs ≈15,000 ≈15,000 ≈29,000
Population ≈34,000 ≈34,000 ≈50,000

WILLA METT E ST
TOWN
1
Mitigation measures would be used to avoid or reduce impacts
Supports Project Does not Support

Criteria Project Criteria
Highway 99 Corridor | 11
Exhibit 5
Page 178 of 290
River Road
This map Corridor:
shows the transit, Comparison of Alternatives
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.

Cost Corridor

$0.0M -$0.6M $2.0M
e Jump
Transit Performance

(Compared to No-Build)
0 33,000 246,000
Bicycling & Walking

(1-5 rating)

(1-5 rating)

(number of spaces)
0/0 0/2 0/31
Jobs ≈19,000 ≈19,000 ≈28,000
Population ≈35,000 ≈35,000 ≈44,000
AVE
N
1

River Road Corridor | 15
Exhibit 5
Page 179 of 290
idor 30th Avenue
This map to transit,
shows the LCC Corridor: Comparison
bicycle, and pedestrian of Alternatives
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.

Cost Corridor

$0.0M -$0.5M $0.5M
ements:
Streets
Transit Performance

(Compared to No-Build) 0 -30,000 198,000
Bicycling & Walking

(1-5 rating)

(1-5 rating)

Jobs ≈15,000 ≈15,000 ≈30,000
Population ≈30,000 ≈30,000 ≈45,000
1

30th Avenue to LCC Corridor | 19
Exhibit 5
Page 180 of 290
Coburg
This mapRoad Corridor:
shows the Comparison
transit, bicycle, and pedestrianof Alternatives
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.

Cost Corridor
R
I V
E
R
s Systemwide Annual Operating Cost
$0.0M $0.0M $1.8M
Transit Performance

(Compared to No-Build) 0 63,000 258,000
Bicycling & Walking

(1-5 rating)

(1-5 rating)
Number/Acreage of Acquisitions 0/0 47/1 73/4

Jobs ≈25,000 ≈25,000 ≈36,000
e Jump Population ≈41,000 ≈41,000 ≈50,000
at I-105
1

Coburg Road Corridor | 23
Exhibit 5
Page 181 of 290
or MLK, Jr. Boulevard
This map Corridor:
shows the transit, bicycle, andComparison of Alternatives
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.
MLK, Jr. Blvd.
No-Build Enhanced No EmX

Cost Corridor
alternative
for this
Capital Cost $0.0M $21.0M route
$0.0M $1.1M
LD Transit Performance
In-Vehicle Transit Travel Time Savings 0 2 min

d
s (Compared to No-Build) 0 186,000
Bicycling & Walking

(1-5 rating)

(1-5 rating)
Number of Medium and Large Trees Impacted 0 9
Number/Acreage of Acquisitions 0/0 6/0.1
Potential Property Displacements1 0 0

(number of spaces) 0/0 0/0
Jobs ≈15,000 ≈15,000
Population ≈26,000 ≈26,000
se Path
1
Martin Luther King, Jr. Corridor | 27
Exhibit 5
Page 182 of 290
From: Paul CONTE <questions@movingahead.org>

Name:Paul CONTE
Organization:
Email: paul.t.conte@gmail.com
Phone: 5413442552
Comments:
Testimony for 9/21/2019 Public Hearing
This form doesn't provide the necessary feature for attachments!
Please incorporate the complete text and images from the article: "Affordable Housing on Transit Land" by Dan Reed on‐
line at:
https://shelterforce.org/2019/09/27/affordable‐housing‐on‐transit‐land/
LTD and the Cities of Eugene and Springfield need to have a unified plan for transit AND affordable housing.
It wastes money to simply build more routes without also supporting development of housing for residents who must
and will use good public transit.
Really, it's a "no‐brainer", as explained fully in the referenced article.
This is especially true if LTD and the City pick either the River Road or Highway 99 as the next route.
Paul Conte
1461 W 10th Ave
Eugene, OR 97402
Exhibit 5
Page 183 of 290
Affordable Housing on Transit Land
Transit providers are often major landowners in their communities, controlling underutilized properties
like park-and-ride lots or storage and maintenance facilities. These sites are also opportunities to provide
desperately needed affordable housing.
By Dan Reed - September 27, 2019
In large and small communities across the U.S., rising rents

and a chronic housing shortage have made it difficult for
working families to make ends meet.
Over the past eight years, housing construction has barely

kept pace with household growth. There’s a shortage of
affordable homes, too: the number of units nationwide Marea Alta, a 200-unit building for
families and seniors, is built on a
renting for less than $800 fell by 4 million between 2011 and former transit agency-owned parking
2017, and in some metropolitan areas, fell by 20 percent, lot. The San Leandro BART station is
pictured in front of the building. Photo
according to the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard courtesy of BRIDGE Housing
University.
Nearly 1 in 3 households (and 47 percent of renter households) are cost-burdened, meaning

they pay more than 30 percent of their income on rent. And among the lowest-income
households, many are simply pushed out of the housing market entirely, leading to a
substantial increase in homelessness. The number of unsheltered homeless people in
California grew by 25 percent between 2014 and 2018. During that same time, it doubled in
Colorado, and increased by 80 percent in Washington state.
This trend is particularly acute in large coastal cities, where population growth, high land
costs, and difficult bureaucratic climates make it especially hard to respond to the need for
housing. Land values, particularly on the West Coast, have increased significantly since
2012. Many of the nation’s largest metropolitan areas are also adding households at a faster
rate than they’re issuing new home permits. These areas also happen to be where the most
jobs and economic opportunities are.
The result is a perfect storm: young households flock to these areas to find jobs and put
down roots in starter homes, while older households are downsizing, which together create
increasing pressure for an already overstretched supply of affordable homes.
“WE TALK ABOUT HOUSING AFFORDABILITY AS THE ONLY

COST YOU HAVE, BUT WHERE YOU LIVE DICTATES HOW MUCH
YOU SPEND ON TRANSPORTATION.”
Meanwhile, public transit providers are struggling to make ends meet. Many agencies are in
a vicious cycle: the increased use of ride-hailing and bike-sharing services means fewer
riders, creating a decline in revenue, which, along with the chronic lack of funding, results in
further service cuts. It doesn’t help that in many communities, an affordable housing
shortage has displaced lower-income riders who typically rely on transit.
Exhibit 5
Page 184 of 290
Phil Washington of Los Angeles Metro once said, “I don’t want to build new tracks, I want to
make sure people can live near our transit.” It is this same spirit that is behind affordable
housing advocates finding new allies—in public transit agencies.
Los Angeles’ Metro transit agency is one several around the nation that has focused on
transit-oriented development and either partnered with affordable housing developers or
promoted affordable housing near its stations. Since 2016, Metro has distributed $9 million
in low-interest rate loans for affordable housing on land adjacent to its stations as part of its
Joint Development Program. Like other agencies, Metro also has an explicit affordable
housing policy, requiring that at least 35 percent of all housing units developed on its
properties be set aside for households making less than 60 percent of the area median
income, or roughly $56,000 per year. The program has generated more than 700 subsidized
affordable units near the agency’s rapidly expanding system, with another 162 affordable
units in construction, and almost 600 more in negotiation.
It turns out that transit agencies have a lot to gain from affordable housing. Transit providers
are often major landowners in their communities, controlling underutilized properties like
park-and-ride lots or leftover pieces of land from the construction of a new project, or
storage and maintenance facilities. These sites are also opportunities to provide desperately
needed affordable housing, which in turn creates increased ridership from residents and
visitors, as well as additional revenue. For instance, it’s estimated that Metropolitan Transit
System properties in San Diego—about 57 acres—can support 8,000 new homes, 3,000 of
which can be reserved as permanently affordable for low-income renters, according to a
Circulate San Diego report.
Housing and Transportation Costs
While housing is the largest expense that people have, the cost of child care, food, health
care, and transportation can also be a substantial burden. “One of our priorities is the . . .
importance of thinking about people’s total costs of living, of which the two biggest are
housing and then transportation,” says Jeremy Wilkening, vice president of real estate
development for Capitol Hill Housing in Seattle, where one-third of households are cost-
burdened, meaning they pay more than 30 percent of their annual income on rent. The
company is a publicly owned affordable housing developer that recently completed an
apartment building in conjunction with Sound Transit, the local transportation agency.
Nationally, households spend an average of 16 percent of their annual income on

transportation costs, and in some areas, transportation can eat up as much as 30 percent,
says Beth Osborne, director of Transportation For America, a national transit advocacy
group. “We talk about housing affordability as the only cost you have,” says Osborne. “But
where you live dictates how much you spend on transportation.”
Within a given metropolitan area, households end up moving further away from job centers
to find affordable homes. Affordable housing providers build in areas where the costs are
lower, or where there isn’t opposition from neighbors. Residents end up paying back that
cost in long commutes, high transit fares, or buying and maintaining one or more cars.
Exhibit 5
Page 185 of 290
“A lot of time, our affordable housing policy says we’ll give [housing] to you, but not close to
the things you need,” says Osborne. “And then you can’t get to work, you can’t get to the
bank, you can’t get to your kids’ school. . . . If everything else is scattered across the region,
it becomes impossible to piece together your daily existence without a car for every adult
over 16 years in your house. That’s a pretty expensive proposition.”
That’s why a recent study from Harvard University found that commuting time is the “single
strongest factor” in a person’s ability to rise out of poverty. The more time people spend
traveling to and from opportunities, or the more unreliable their trip is, the harder it is for
them to improve their situation.
Financing is a Challenge
In the Washington, D.C., area, renters need to make nearly $133,000 per year to afford
rental housing without being cost-burdened. That means transportation costs, and simply
having access to reliable, frequent transit service can have a transformative effect on
residents’ lives. That’s the finding at The Bonifant, a mixed-use, high-rise senior housing
development in Silver Spring, Maryland, built adjacent to a light-rail station.
“We know from our experience that seniors don’t want or need a car to get around,” says
Rob Goldman, president of Montgomery Housing Partnership (MHP), which developed The
Bonifant. “There’s a concept in suburban settings to put seniors further out, but they want to
live in a downtown area where there’s lots of amenities. They don’t just want a shuttle to the
grocery store. They want freedom and access.”
The Bonifant was a partnership between Montgomery

County, which owns the land; MHP, a private affordable
housing developer; and the Maryland Transit Administration,
which is constructing the 16-mile light rail called the Purple
Line. The county originally planned to only build a library on
the site, but when the state selected it for a future station in
2009, county officials decided to build affordable housing
there as well, citing the area’s high housing costs. The
Bonifant opened seven years later, in 2016. All but 10 of the
high-rise’s 149 apartments are set aside for senior
households earning between $30,000 and $60,000 per year.
“The building was engineered around the Purple Line’s The Bonifant, a mixed-use high rise in
Maryland, was developed in
needs,” says Stephanie Roodman, project manager for the partnership with Montgomery County,
Bonifant. The 11-story building’s Art Deco-style exterior has which owns the land; the Montgomery
Housing Partnership, a private
a curved facade at the corner where the tracks wrap around affordable housing developer; and the
Maryland Transit Administration. Photo
it, while an adjacent park provides an amenity for residents,
courtesy of Montgomery Housing
future transit riders, and for patrons of a public library, which Partnership
was built at the same time and is cantilevered over the

station platform. Supports connect the Bonifant to catenary
wires used to power light-rail trains.
Exhibit 5
Page 186 of 290
The Purple Line’s proximity to the building meant that MHP had to forgo parking, which
almost killed the project. “Originally, we were going to have one underground level of
parking,” says Roodman, but the Maryland Transit Administration rejected it, as the only
feasible location for a parking entrance was next to train tracks, creating a dangerous
situation for drivers.
Like many affordable housing developments, this $44 million project has a complicated
financing scheme. Montgomery County owns the land, which is leased to MHP for 77 years.
To develop the building, MHP received funding from a variety of public agencies, including
the county and state housing agencies, HUD, and private banks. Even still, lenders were
reluctant to fund the building, saying it would be difficult to find tenants due to the lack of
parking.
“We had to convince lenders that the project would be successful without parking, and
brought examples of other similar buildings around the country,” says Roodman. Instead, the
building generated tremendous interest—when it opened in 2016, there were already 800
inquiries for its 149 units, and each of its four ground-floor retail spaces had been rented.
Just 32 of the 149 tenants in the building have cars, Roodman notes, and most of them park
them at a municipal parking garage a block away.
Zoning is Also a Big Issue
While financing is an issue, zoning may be the biggest factor that prevents transit agencies
from getting affordable housing built on its land. “A huge part of the problem is the land use
rules, which transit agencies have no responsibility and very little control over,” says
Osborne.
In many cities, rail transit stations may be surrounded by areas with single-family home
zoning, which prohibits apartments and effectively makes affordable housing illegal, as it
typically comes in the form of multi-family buildings. Where zoning does allow for higher-
density development near transit, the demand for housing is so high that land prices
skyrocket, which makes homes more expensive. This can make subsidized affordable
housing financially impossible, and even when housing providers can make the funding work,
they may simply be outbid by market-rate developers.
“We have so little high-quality transit, every stitch of property around that station is in huge
demand . . . there’s not enough of it to go around,” Osborne says.
Local municipalities that set zoning and land-use rules face pressure from residents who
don’t want higher-density development in their neighborhood, making it politically difficult to
provide space for affordable housing. As a result, agencies may have affordable housing
policies, but can’t actually make it happen.
You Need a Lot of Patience
In Seattle, Sound Transit has had a policy promoting transit-oriented development since
2010. In 2018, the public transit agency’s board created an official policy that it would offer
Exhibit 5
Page 187 of 290
at least 80 percent of its surplus property to affordable housing developers at below market
rate, or at no cost. The agency requires that at least 80 percent of the new homes be
affordable in perpetuity to households making below the area median income.
This isn’t Sound Transit’s first foray with affordable housing. It’s taken almost 20 years for
one of the agency’s first affordable-housing partnerships to get built due to a lengthy
community engagement process. Planning for the Capitol Hill Station, located underground
in a historic neighborhood, began in the 1990s. Residents were initially resistant to proposals
for apartments above the light-rail station before agreeing to accept them with some height
restrictions. Station House, a 110-unit building designated for working families making
between $19,000 and $55,000 per year, will open in 2020.
Sound Transit selected Capitol Hill Housing, a publicly owned affordable housing authority, to
develop the building along with private developer Gerding Edlen, which built a grocery store,
daycare, and about 300 market-rate apartments on the three-acre site. “[Capitol Hill
Housing has] a strong willingness to work with affordable housing providers on the transit
sites, and that goes a good ways towards making this work,” says Wilkening.
The project is a complex undertaking in every way, as each of the project’s partners had
their own requirements to meet. Sound Transit cleared the site, built a large trench for the
rail station, then built a platform over it. The agency selected Gerding Edlen to lease the site
for 99 years, but the City of Seattle, which invested $8 million in Station House, prefers fee-
simple ownership for affordable housing developments, where a buyer is given ownership of
the property, which includes the land and any improvements to the land. This resulted in a
complicated dance: Capitol Hill Housing bought the land and created a legal structure that
allowed it to own the building but not the land beneath it. The land was then sold back to
Sound Transit so that the agency could lease it to Gerding Edlen.
By law, Sound Transit must put covenants on its property dictating that homes built there
stay affordable in perpetuity. However, that agreement conflicted with what Capitol Hill
Housing’s lenders and investors require when using affordable housing tax credits to build a
property, which put the project’s financing at risk. “[Capitol Hill Housing] had to spend a lot
of time educating the transit agency on how we provide affordable housing, and they had to
conform their documents to those requirements,” says Wilkening.
“THERE’S A LEARNING CURVE FOR BOTH US AND FOR THEM,

AND WE SORT OF SPEAK DIFFERENT LANGUAGES. IT WOULD
TAKE A LITTLE BIT LONGER TO MAKE THE TRANSACTION
SUCCESSFUL.”
As a result of the extensive planning process, Capitol Hill Housing inherited specific design
guidelines dictating exactly where everything on the site would go, from bike racks to
building entrances. And of course, the building is above an underground train station and
atop a parking garage built for shoppers and tenants of the privately developed apartment
building, which created engineering challenges.
Exhibit 5
Page 188 of 290
Despite all of this, Wilkening feels it was worth it. “There was a lot of learning that happened
with Station House with us and Sound Transit, and we’re definitely applying it to our next
project with them,” he says, adding that Sound Transit was happy to incorporate feedback
from this development to streamline their affordable housing requirements for future
projects. Capitol Hill Housing is currently working with Sound Transit on an LGBTQ-affirming
senior housing project, which involves a complicated land swap with both the transit agency
and a local college.
Forming Relationships
The San Francisco Bay Area is one of the nation’s most expensive regions, as rising housing
costs have dramatically outpaced income over the past 40 years. It’s no surprise then that
the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system in the San Francisco Bay Area may be one of the
first agencies in the country to have an affordable housing policy for its land. Since 1993 it
has worked with developers to build over 750 affordable homes near 11 stations, while
another 1,000 are in planning or under construction. The agency’s long-term goal is to add
up to 18,000 homes at its stations by 2040, 35 percent of which would be available at
below-market rates. A recently passed law requires cities with BART stations to change their
zoning to allow higher-density housing up to 12 stories.
BRIDGE Housing, a San Francisco-based affordable housing developer, has worked with
BART on eight projects, including Marea Alta, a 200-unit building for families and seniors
that is built on a former agency-owned parking lot at the San Leandro BART station. The
two-building project, which opened in 2017 and includes a childcare center and plaza, was
built using modular construction, which lowered costs. BART required BRIDGE Housing to
replace onsite parking with a parking garage, which increased the number of spaces, and
BRIDGE also provided a new waiting area for rail passengers.
This long-term relationship, spanning almost two decades, has allowed both organizations to
better understand each other’s needs. “Transit agencies are generally filled with engineers,
and they focus on trains on rails,” says Cynthia Parker, president and CEO of BRIDGE
Housing. “Over time I would say that the agency has had the focus of transit-oriented
development percolate through the ranks. They’re definitely more aware of some of the
challenges of developing housing on site.”
Many of their projects have included public amenities for BART stations themselves. For
instance in San Leandro, BRIDGE provided a new waiting area for rail passengers, built
according to the agency’s specifications, which brings its own challenges. A BRIDGE complex
at the MacArthur BART station included a public plaza, which the developer built for BART
using a transportation grant. Parker noted that the transit agency, which manages large,
multibillion-dollar infrastructure projects, was accustomed to making design changes
throughout the construction process, which are hard for relatively smaller housing
developers to accommodate.
Nonetheless, Parker is “a fan of working with these agencies,” she says. “From a transit
benefit standpoint, it’s good for the agencies, it’s good for our residents because our
residents need to commute for work . . . and the adjacency to a transit line saves a
considerable amount of money.”
Exhibit 5
Page 189 of 290
It Takes Time
Most of the transit agencies that have affordable housing policies are on the West Coast,
though Osborne of Transportation For America highlights Massachusetts, which is working to
promote more walkable neighborhoods to make it easier for people to live near and use
transit. She notes that cities and states with more progressive zoning will be in a better
position to provide more affordable housing near transit, like Minneapolis, which eliminated
single-family zoning and legalized triplexes throughout the city, including near transit.
Triplexes can now be built “by-right,” meaning they’re automatically allowed by the local
zoning code and don’t require special approvals to be built.
“They’re really leading the way,” she says. “They’ll have some real opportunity in being able
to build affordable housing by-right, which will make it easier to build more housing near
transit and drive up ridership and make transit more productive.”
Of course, zoning changes take time, as do policy changes, changes to lender requirements,
and culture shifts at transit agencies. Wilkening of Capitol Hill Housing in Seattle advises
anyone interested in building affordable housing near transit to have patience.
“People who work at transit agencies focus on transit, and [affordable housing providers]
focus on housing,” he says. “There’s a learning curve for both us and for them, and we sort
of speak different languages. It would take a little bit longer to make the transaction
successful.”
Editor’s Note: We thank Citi Community Development for their

financial support and complete editorial independence as we develop a
series of articles relating to permanent affordability, scaling up
affordable housing, and displacement. Read the first piece in the
series, “A Health Insurer and a CDC Collaborate to Move the Needle on Housing and Health.”
This article will appear in the Fall 2019 edition of Shelterforce magazine.
Subscribe here.
Dan Reed
http://www.justupthepike.com
Dan Reed is a freelance writer and urban planner based in Montgomery County, Maryland. Dan has written
for the New York Times, the Atlantic, Architect Magazine, Greater Greater Washington, and Washingtonian
Magazine.
Exhibit 5
Page 190 of 290

Subject: Fw: [External Sender] Moving Ahead
Attachments: image001.png
Please enter the below as a comment.
Thanks,
Andrew
________________________________
From: Aurora Jackson
To: Mark Johnson; Andrew Martin; Tom Schwetz
Subject: FW: [External Sender] Moving Ahead
For the official record.
A.J.
Aurora Jackson
General Manager
(541) 682‐6105
[cid:image001.png@01D58845.A1888F60]
From: Gary Wildish [mailto:gwildish@chambers‐gc.com]
To: mayorcouncilandcitymanager@ci.eugene.or.us
Subject: [External Sender] Moving Ahead
Good afternoon Mayor and City Councilors, I have a conflict so I won't be at this evenings hearing. Sorry. Moving Ahead
is very important for the Community, the City of Eugene as well as for LTD. I would like to share some ideas with you.
Moving Ahead and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) sounds like at Public Transportation project but it is much more. It is
important to know that both Enhanced and EMX are BRT. If you looked at the budget for the West 11th EMX, you would
find that there was more community enhancement than public transportation in the budget. There was money for new
stations and very nice new stops along the way with a number of new busses. Most of the money was spend on street
improvements, new surfacing, some new travel lanes, better turning lanes for the general public. New storm water
collection and treatment, improved signalization at numerous locations, many more trees than had to be removed.
Many miles of new sidewalks along with three bridges over the Amazon that provide improved bike‐ped options. EWEB
was able to improve their infrastructure as they made the many necessary utility adjustments.
West 11th looks better than I have ever seen it, inviting, prosperous, attractive and a great front door for West
Eugene. The other EMX projects also have been great improvements in their areas.
Exhibit 5
Page 191 of 290
When the previous project were being funded BRT was a new idea and LTD got in front of other Transportation
agencies. Today that is not the case. Funding is going to be more difficult to acquire. We are going to have to step up
financially at the local level at amounts that were not necessary in the past.
EMX provides the most community enhancements and the Enhanced option is more about public transit. Each
route has special challenges. EMX works on some routes and would be very difficult on others.
Moving Ahead will have an important impact on the development of Eugene's Main Corridors. Your decision will be with
the Community for a long time. I hope you will support Moving Ahead!
Thanks for your time and consideration, Gary Wildish, Past LTD Board Member
Exhibit 5
Page 192 of 290
From: Dennis Sandow <questions@movingahead.org>

Name:Dennis Sandow
Organization:
Email: dennissandow5@gmail.com
Phone:
Comments:
Eugene Neighborhood Leaders Council
River Road Community Organization
Santa Clara Community Organization
Eugene City Council Member Claire Syrett Mayor Vinis LTD Board of Directors LTD General Manager Aurora Jackson
September 21 2019
The River Road Corridor Project (RRCP) part of the MovingAhead project be suspended until the following deficiencies
are addressed.
1. Planning for the Ruth Bascom bike path. The Ruth Bascom bike path offers people without homes, people with
mobility support needs, pedestrians, cyclists and an increasing number of electric wheelchairs, scooter and bicycles
connections to the city. It also offers the poor access to the greenway without which public health research shows
increases in ill mental and physical health. It also connects several community gardens and urban farms. Any publicly
funded project claiming to be sustainable would address the future of the bike path. To date, RRCP has not.
2. Lanes defining the quality of River Road and Whiteaker. Lanes are narrow passages from the City to the
Willamette River. Many do not have sidewalks. But this does not threaten the safety of pedestrians, cyclists or folks with
alternative mobility needs. That is because lanes have social equity meaning that pedestrians, cyclists, motorists and
people with alternative mobility needs all share equal access. To date, RRCP has not addressed how the existing lanes
will be left as they are.
3. Citizen involvement and the exclusion of Whiteaker neighbors from the RRCP. I wrote Sasha Luftig requesting a
copy of the grant funding the RRCP on May 8 and then again on September 9 2019. As of today, I have not received a
reply.
More concerning is the fact that Whiteaker neighbors living on Fir Lane, Lombard Lane and E Briarcliff Lane have not
been given the opportunity to participate in the RRCP. While the RRCO and SCCO have been involved in all aspects of the
RRCP, the WCC has not. An alternative process was presented to Mr Brown that would address the unique
characteristics of the Whiteaker neighbors living there (Attachment A). He replied that after consult with others in the
city, they had not time for a 2 hour meeting with neighbors there Attachment B). This was after City Manager Jon Ruiz
had these comments about the small neighborhood:
“I appreciated the gathering with your neighbors and was reminded of the richness of individual and collective stories
that define the sense of place in a neighborhood – more so then the physical space. Not all neighborhoods share the
social capital that flows through your neighborhood, and the challenge, it seems to me, is to find ways to continue and
Exhibit 5
Page 193 of 290
refresh the threads as change occurs. I learned that the caring and commitment, as articulated through the stories, has
sustained the sense of place in your neighborhood for decades.”
The RRCP has not addressed the challenge to conserve the unique social capital in that neighborhood. Nor has the RRCP
met the criteria set forth by the IAP2, something they claim to have accomplished.
4. Unacceptable social impact for evaluating the RRCP. The RRCP will evaluate these social impacts (Jan 2019
draft):
The social issues in the RRCP include people without homes, hunger, poverty, substance abuse, crime, refugee status
and teenage suicide to name a few. With a planned increase from population growth these social issues will grow
proportionately. If we do not plan to address these issues they will grow. The RRCP does not include these high priority
issues in its evaluation.
Projects such as the RRCP become proposed investments for the future. The source for resources the public. Hence,
until the deficiencies (as we have partially listed) are addressed by the RRCP we request the project be terminated or
postponed until the deficiencies are addressed.
Sincerely,
Dennis Sandow
Attachment A Email from Dennis Sandow to Eric Brown asking for inclusion of Fir, Lombard and EBriarcliff Lanes in the
RRCP.
Eric Brown
Associate Planner
99 W. 10th Avenue
Eugene, OR 97401
March 26, 2019
Hello Eric
Thank you for accepting this request for conducting a planning session with the residents of Fir Lane, Lombard Lane and
East Briarcliff Lane. It is a testament to your commitment to citizen involvement.
There are two reasons for making this request.
1. Most of the residents living in this neighborhood are in the jurisdiction of the Whiteaker Community Council.
The WCC has not be involved in the River Road Corridor study even though they are directly in the corridor itself.
2. The Fir‐Lombard‐E Briarcliff neighborhood has developed unique social services for those with physical
challenges who require mobility devices ranging from electric powered wheel chairs to walkers.
The request.
Exhibit 5
Page 194 of 290
1. We request that a brief (1.5‐2 hour) planning session be conducted by asking two questions.
a. How do residents care for those with physical challenges, senior citizens and those needing affordable housing?
b. What would the neighbors like to conserve in the neighborhood in the future?
2. We request that Fir, Lombard and E Briarcliff, with a history of no accidents for over 20 years, be evaluated as a
woonerf . This will be fun! Our neighbor, Emery has told me that he is happy to give you a ride on his famous limo – the
“cosmic limo of the Country Fair”. This will result in you seeing the world of transportation through human powered
non‐auto perspectives and how efficient the bike network is in connecting people with mobility devices to the city.
3. Finally, we request that the planning be aimed implementing the empower process of the Public Participation
Spectrum
The value to the city.
1. Improve the River Road Corridor planning process by including us in the study. We all have talked about our
neighborhood being the isthmus between River Road and the Willamette River and planning without representation can
destroy the character of our neighborhood. This would also result in including the WCC neighbors in the RRCS planning.
2. Innovate in micro‐planning in two important process improvements.
a. Apply a proven process for assessing social capital to address the social impacts of planning and development.
The RRCS does not include adequate processes for understanding what is most important to our community – social
impact. Impacts such as homelessness, substance abuse, theft and public health have not been included in the
discussion. ECONorthwest may appear to be a proxy, but economics is not a valid indicator for social wellbeing.
This innovation will bring urban planning in line with Oregon’s greatest health priority in improving upon health equities.
b. Focus on conservation instead of change. In a conversation I had with a county manager some time ago, I was
told that it cost his agency $80,000 to respond to a neighborhood’s resistance to a proposed project. So why the
resistance from those that entrust well educated planning professionals to plan the future of our cities?
c. Human centric transportation innovation. If you do come and accept Emery’s invitation for him to take you for a
ride on his limo, you will begin to see the bike path as a network connecting people using mobility devices to the city.
This innovation is a significant contribution to the cities response to climate change and greenhouse gas reduction.
People do not resist change. They resist being changed.
Instead of focusing on change, this innovation will demonstrate that there is greater value and engagement to tax
paying citizens by asking them about conserving the wellbeing in their neighborhood. When this approach is taken, tax
payers engaged in the change, knowing that it will not have deleterious impacts on where they have chosen to spend
their futures.
I hoped that this request was adequate. Please let me know if it is not and I will be happy to quickly reply.
Very best
Dennis Sandow
Attachment B Eric Brown’s response to Dennis Sandow’s request
Hi Denis,
I spoke with a few of my colleagues about your request.
Exhibit 5
Page 195 of 290
Unfortunately at this time, the Planning Division does not have capacity to take on a separate planning process for your
neighborhood. In order to best serve your community, I'd encourage you to continue participating in both the River
Road ‐ Santa Clara Neighborhood Plan and the River Road Corridor Study. There is a meeting Wednesday evening for
the neighborhood plan at North Eugene High School (https://www.eugene‐or.gov/3667/Get‐Involved), and an ongoing
survey about the corridor (https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/RR_Corridor). We will have another corridor focused
workshop in early June. If you are on our neighborhood plan email list (https://www.eugene‐or.gov/3698/Newsletters),
you will get the information.
Of course, the long‐range planning team's workplan is largely dictated by Council. It is by Council direction that we are
working with River Road and Santa Clara Community Organizations on their neighborhood plan. If you would like to see
similar resources dedicated to your neighborhood, I would recommend advocating for that with Council through the
WCC.
I also want to share with you that I am transitioning out of my role on the RRSC Plan to take on a position downtown. I
am excited about the opportunity, but sad to leave the neighborhood planning project.
Let me know if you have any questions,
Eric
Exhibit 5
Page 196 of 290
From: Maxwell Thomas Vuylsteke <questions@movingahead.org>

Name:Maxwell Thomas Vuylsteke
Organization:
Email: Maxwelltv2@gmail.com
Phone: 5036161112
Comments:
Exhibit 5
Page 197 of 290
David Wade (from transcript of oral testimony on October 21, 2019)
Thank you for hearing us out. I'm in Alan Zelenka's ward, my name is David Wade and I live in the city of
Eugene. The issue of our time is climate change, and everything you do, you need ask yourself how this
affects climate change. If you're not asking that question, you are making a planet-threatening mistake.
The only option here that helps slow down climate change is the all EmX corridor. Eugenians will not get
out of their cars to take a bus. It's too low class, it's too threatening, doesn't come on time, doesn't
come often enough, and anyway it's low class. They will get out of their cars to take EmX. Why? It's high
class, it’s high tech, it looks like a trolley, it has fixed stations, it runs every ten minutes, and doesn't run
late unless a bus breaks down, okay? The only way to get people out of their cars in Eugene is to go with
the EmX corridor. Any other choice is saying well, we don't really care about climate change at this
point, we'll just buy some right-of-way and do EmX later. Big mistake. Later and climate change is a big
mistake. Portland made the terrible error of going with fixed rail. Cost ten times as much as EmX. They
don't have the money to complete it. Now they have to go with these enhanced bus corridors. No one
takes a bus, whether it's enhanced or un-enhanced, okay? I rode the number 11 bus for six years, before
you put in EmX, it ran every 15 minutes, it was an enhanced bus route, and I’m the only coat and tie on
that bus for six years? Why? It's low class. People will not get out of their car to take a bus ever it runs
every 15 minutes or every 5, they won't do it. So if you want to do something about climate change and
want to avoid the mistakes Portland has made, EmX corridor. Thank you very much.
Exhibit 5
Page 198 of 290
Christopher Logan (from transcript of oral testimony on October 21, 2019)
I'd like to agree to some extent with the last speaker and disagree to some extent. I'm Christopher
Logan, I live on River Road – 1229 Dalton Drive. Everything you build, even an EmX bus, causes global
warming. Steel has to be smelted with coal, there is no other way. Transportation of materials and you
build new roads, you got to have concrete. Where do you get concrete? It’s a tremendous emitter of
carbon. And they steal gravel from the buttes, they steal it from the Willamette River. And then when
they demolish stuff, Willamette Sand and Gravel sticks the demolition waste back where we used to
have gravel that was historically deposited, right? Now we have concrete and tires and things like that.
So every construction causes global warming. And if you want to be carbon neutral, the first thing you
have to do is stop this we have to build. It says here Eugene is growing, we expect 34,000 new people
and 37,000 new jobs. Where do you get the idea you'll get 37,000 new jobs? Sorry, where do we get the
idea we are definitely going to get 37,000 jobs? What you're going to do, you're going to bring a bunch
of people from Los Angeles to come up here for the squirrels and the rest of us have to endure these
ugly buildings, these huge EmX with the turn lanes and -- okay, EmX would be good on going to
Springfield. It’s good on Highway 99. You might as well run it up West 11th. That place is already
destroyed. River road is special. River Road is the garden district of your city. It’s where we have large
lots. We have kids playing in the lanes, and that's why we moved there. We don't need more
construction. And here it says MovingAhead’s ultimate goal is to create a ten-year investment plan for
five key corridors. The investment plan envisions thousands of new riders only going up and down River
Road, but nobody lives on River Road. We all live in the lanes. What we need is connectors, you know,
and I’d like to give you another plan. A better plan would be to forgive the fees for building ADUs -
mother-in-laws in the back of our property - because if you do that, you’ll have your infills right away.
We’ll build it. You don't have to have these out of state developers come to build it. The neighbors will
be integrated with the neighborhood, and we don't have to have these big, ugly buildings, but if you
build a corridor down river road, it has to have riders living along the street. So please, No Build.
Exhibit 5
Page 199 of 290
Rob Zako (from transcript of oral testimony on October 21, 2019)
I’m Rob Zako, the executive director of Better Eugene Springfield Transportation. Thank you for this
opportunity to comment. Thank you also to the MovingAhead team for all the good work getting us to
this point. BEST suggests MovingAhead boils down to two key questions. The first question is
fundamental, and easy. What does the public want? Our community values the triple bottom line of
people, prosperity, and planet. In line with these values, BEST finds the community shares a vision for
complete streets, offering different ways to go, Vision Zero, so everyone gets their safely, and compact
urban development so more people have access to such good transportation options. The vision is
reflected in adopted plans and policies including Envision Eugene, the Transportation System Plan, the
Vision Zero Action Plan, LTD’s Long Range Transit Plan, and the Climate Recovery Ordinance. The second
question is technical and, hence, harder. For each of the five MovingAhead corridors should the locally
preferred alternative be the familiar EmX or a newer concept known as Enhanced Corridor. The choice is
akin to a car salesman offering you a deluxe or basic package. You don't really need or want to pay for
everything in the deluxe package, but the basic package isn’t enough. Similarly, BEST recommends
something between EmX and Enhanced Corridor, we’re calling enhanced corridor plus. Enhanced
Corridor provides more frequent, useful transit service by using the right combination of tools for the
job. Last year the City of Portland adopted this new concept with their Enhanced Transit Corridor Plan.
When it comes to transit, BEST recommends Enhanced Corridor offers most of the benefits of EmX with
a fraction of the cost. But investing in Enhanced Corridor isn’t enough. We need at least three additional
items. One, safety. If protecting life is a top priority, we must not cut corners when it comes to safety,
especially for the most vulnerable people who are walking, bicycling, and using mobility devices. For all
corridors, make all the safety improvements planned in the EmX alternative. Two, Franklin Boulevard.
The EmX we have is already successful. Indeed it is so successful, that there's a critical need to add a
second EmX track or lane to support more frequent service by the University of Oregon. To do just that,
prioritize the franklin boulevard transportation project. Three, other actions. Lastly, it isn't enough just
to invest in infrastructure, expecting that if we build it, it will come. Strategically leverage major capital
investments with other coordinated actions. For example, implement Transit Tomorrow to provide
frequent useful transit service as soon as fall 2020. For example, develop funding for a stable level
transit service through economic boom and bust cycles. For example, change setback requirements to
protect needed rights of ways for future bus rapid transit. For example, adopt land use changes to
support desired transit oriented development along with Envision Eugene. In conclusion, to advance our
community's shared vision for better transportation, select enhanced corridor plus. You should all have
this enhanced corridor plus handout. If anyone in the audience would like it, we have more copies.
Thank you.
Exhibit 5
Page 200 of 290
Sarah Mazze (from transcript of oral testimony on October 21, 2019)
Mayor, city council and LTD Board, my name is Sarah Mazze and I’m the Safe Routes to School
coordinator for 4J School District. I live in the River Road neighborhood. I also support enhanced plus
and by that, I mean that I would like to see a sufficient increase in frequency of transit and a sufficient
improvement in safety for people walking and biking that we can actually meet the goals and priorities
that Rob just described, that have been adopted by city council around mode shift, reduction in fossil
fuel use and reduction in traffic deaths or elimination of traffic deaths on adopted timelines. We are not
on track right now for that. I'll share with you something that I share with families. I speak with a lot of
families about whether they feel comfortable, how their children travel to school, what they feel
comfortable with. A lot of people tell me the roads are too dangerous for their kids to use active
transportation and the paths don't feel safe to them because of people living on the paths. Whether
that's real or simply perceived risk, it is changing - those things are changing behavior. Indeed, we have
actually had four students already that I know of, who have been hit walking or biking to school in just
the month and a half since school has started. Meanwhile behaviors are changing in a positive way
where the city and county and 4j have invested in infrastructure improvements. Like Grove Street near
Howard and Kelly Elementary in North Park and like the Active Amazon Corridor. We are seeing more
students walking, we are seeing more bikes in the bike racks, and these are just small changes so
imagine if we were to actually roll out changes in the way that they’ve done in other countries like
Denmark and the Netherlands where they end up with a third to half of all trips being made by bike and
a huge amount of trips made by transit and walking. In Seville, Spain in one year they put in something
like 35 miles of protected bike way and they saw after a couple of years their trips by bike increased by
10 percent. The end result is that a transportation system that's more accessible to the young, to the
old, to those who can't afford to drive themselves, and then there’s less traffic on the road from those
who do need to drive themselves. These other places that have done this, they've had pushback on
individual projects just like we have here and they’ve kept their eye on the prize and they've pushed
forward. I ask all of you to please support our staff at ltd and the city in pressing forward with the safety
improvements that we need and the increase in service that we need to actually make transit and active
transportation the safest and easiest choice because that’s how we’re going to actually make the
changes that we need. These need to be the obvious way to go rather than grabbing your car keys and
getting in the car.
Exhibit 5
Page 201 of 290
Phil Farrington (from transcript of oral testimony on October 21, 2019)
I’m Phil Farrington. I live in ward 1, here representing CDC Management Corp. where I serve as the
planning and real estate development director. Over 20 years ago, I came to Eugene and worked with
Councilor Pryor back then for Willamalane Park District and served on the Transportation System
Improvements Committee for TransPlan, which had conceived of EmX - a remarkable vision that I
honestly at the time thought would not have been implemented in the manner in which it has at this
time. So I think hats off to everybody in the community in making the successful system we have and
enjoy today and is the rival of so many other communities. I’m here though speaking on behalf of the
owners of property along Coburg Road about the potential to redevelop and the implications of EmX or
enhanced transit and the taking of right-of-way off of existing property. I know that LTD has a great track
record of being sensitive to property owners for those takings and trying to minimize those as much as
possible. In the enhanced transit model that's proposed, at the intersection of Beltline and Coburg Road
is proposed a dedicated right hand turn lane that takes some square footage, I think the staff has told
me about 4650 square feet from the property that abuts this portion of Coburg Road. Whereas we are
trying to redevelop this property that formerly has KEZI’s studio location, we are in the difficult position
of trying to - one code requirement that we must meet to put the building within only so much
proximity of the existing right-of-way and yet also putting enough to accommodate for future EmX or
enhanced transit development. It puts the development and the developer in a very difficult position of
trying to determine that we can meet code today and yet accommodate the needs of transit in the
future. We know we'll have an opportunity to work with city and LTD staff going forward, to try to work
on this. I ask you all to be very sensitive to the implications of expanding right-of-way to accommodate
and its implications and meanings for businesses and redevelopment concepts, consistent with your
own established goals and codes. Thank you very much.
Exhibit 5
Page 202 of 290
Laura Potter (from transcript of oral testimony on October 21, 2019)
My name is Laura Potter. I live in Eugene in Ward 2. I am a board member of Better Eugene Springfield
Transportation and I was a founding member of BEST and I’m excited to be back on the board since
moving back to Eugene. I’m speaking tonight on behalf of BEST to urge you to pursue an enhanced
corridor plus. BEST believes this is the most cost effective alternative for improving the ways all people
can get around Eugene. BEST formed in 2012 the support west Eugene EmX because we knew then as
we do now, it is critical to invest in our community's future. We need complete streets to enable people
with different needs to choose the best way to get around safely, practically, and affordably. Eugene is
better off for the transportation options we have. The investments we have made have contributed to
increased livability for people in our community. BEST wants to see that tradition of investment
continue in a way that maximizes our dollars to serve the most people. I love EmX, I think it is a fabulous
model for transit and I am proud of the EmX lines we have here in Eugene. Completely building out EmX
will cost $332 million and result in increased operating costs of $8.2 million a year. While the enhanced
investment package, which we are recommending is projected to cost $145 million and result in an
operating cost decrease. And after reviewing the EmX Alternatives we still – best - still has outstanding
questions and hasn't seen sufficient evidence that the benefits justify the significantly higher costs
compared to enhanced corridors. I also must point out that one of the primary motivations is to provide
frequent service along major corridors. LTD is working to achieve the goal through the Transit Tomorrow
program - an initiative to take existing revenue and reallocate it to provide more frequency and
consistency in service along major corridors. Our vision when we formed BEST was to bring together
voices from the different perspectives in the community who interacted with transit and transportation.
We knew that transit isn't just a business issue or an environmental issue. It wasn't just about low
income riders or students. Having a good transit network, safe streets, bike lanes and transportation
options is important for the entire community today and in the future. This diversity of perspective is
still a core value of best as I think you will see demonstrated here tonight. It’s not just what one person
or organization thinks, it's about a group of community leaders coming together, understanding each
other's perspective and figuring out how to achieve our goals with the resources we have. I hope you
will consider our recommendations, thank you.
Exhibit 5
Page 203 of 290
Marianne Nolte (from transcript of oral testimony on October 21, 2019)
I'm with Better Eugene Springfield Transportation. I’m the transportation options coordinator. I’m
speaking tonight in support of enhanced corridor plus. I want to note that over the last five years the
city's ideas about bus rapid transit have evolved. Under TransPlan, which was adopted in 2001, the
vision was for 61 miles of bus rapid transit or an EmX-like service along major corridors in Eugene and
Springfield. Since that time, however, the region's vision has changed, LTD's long-range plan from 2014
and Eugene’s system transportation plan from 2017 do not explicitly call for bus rapid transit or EmX.
They do call for a frequent transit network. The plans are now more focused on useful service, whatever
that useful service’s shape might take. LTD is on the verge of achieving the frequent transit network as
they launch Transit Tomorrow. Transit Tomorrow calls for frequent service every 15 minutes along most
major corridors in Eugene and Springfield, including all five MovingAhead corridors. So our aim was to
implement a frequent transit network. We are doing that as early as fall 2020, which is one year from
now. It may be Transit Tomorrow gives us the service improvements we need without the costly
infrastructure investments that bus rapid transit would entail. BEST has analyzed this issue over the last
several months and I have a handout here of our analysis that I’ll hand to city manager and you should
have all received an e-mail of this. This contains our analysis and our recommendations for how to move
forward with enhanced corridor plus. Thank you.
Exhibit 5
Page 204 of 290
Phil Barnhart (from transcript of oral testimony on October 21, 2019)
Good evening and thank you very much for holding this meeting. I’m Phil Barnhart. I live in Ward 3. I’m
the president of a new organization called the Emerald Valley Electric Vehicle Association. Because it's
just organizing, I do not claim to speak for them, only for myself. I am not an expert on transportation. I
have been reviewing this plan, the Transit Tomorrow plan, and some other things as a part of my
attendance at the Local Government Affairs Committee of the Chamber of Commerce - which, by the
way, if you haven't been there, you should attend now and then. It’s an extremely useful meeting. I do
have a couple of comments, however. We are faced with a huge climate emergency worldwide. The city
of Eugene and Lane Transit District have a part to play in ameliorating and solving for carbon emissions
and other aspects of this problem. In order to do it, you have to look at different systems as if they were
part of integrated wholes. the insight that I bring if I have one, are that the plans are fragmented,
considered separately as if they were separate issues and they're not being integrated in ways that will
actually be useful to our community. That of course includes Transit Tomorrow, but it also includes the
housing -- long-term housing plans, which have to be built in such a way that walking is the main source
of transportation to shopping and to work rather than transit, bicycles, or cars. We need to move rapidly
towards a city which has an infrastructure designed for electric vehicles because we don't have time to
rebuild the city to do all of our movement by bicycle, walking or by bus. And that would include things
like the additional building code option that you ought to be looking at to make certain there are
enough electric vehicles chargers in new construction. There are a whole variety of issues that I have not
touched on that have to be considered together. I know your procedures, especially things like applying
for federal grants, have to be done in what look like silos, but I hope you are all working to integrate the
entire planning systems so we can actually change our city so it becomes a city in which it's capable to
reduce carbon emissions, to increase people's livability, and make life better for all of us. It’s a
worldwide problem, but we can do our part. Thank you very much.
Exhibit 5
Page 205 of 290
Jolene Siemsen (from transcript of oral testimony on October 21, 2019)
Good evening Mayor, City Council, LTD Board. My name is Jolene Siemsen. I’m a river road neighbor. I’ve
served on multiple neighborhood planning advisory committees over the last couple of decades. I was
previously the chair of the river road community organization. In addition, while working at the
University of Oregon for 25 years, I was a year-round cyclists. I commuted by bike and occasionally by
bus. I did use EmX and enjoyed it quite a bit. Currently in retirement, I find myself walking daily, usually
with my dog in the neighborhood and along the river paths. I support the EmX option for the River Road-
Santa Clara transportation corridor as the best choice for redevelopment of this busy transportation
corridor. The EmX option offers 21st century solutions to ongoing concerns regarding the crisis of
climate change, increases in our local population, and real concerns regarding all user safety. Numerous
public planning processes involving the River Road-Santa Clara neighborhoods have targeted issues of
multimodal transportation on River Road, previously a two lane thoroughfare, currently a five lane
major lane arterial supporting close to 20,000 vehicles a day. Increased traffic has created a serious
barrier to access across River Road, creating a negative environment for the neighborhood and
generating safety concerns for cyclists and pedestrians. Lack of protected crossings across five lanes of
traffic makes it difficult for neighbors to access local businesses, bus stops and nearby parks and open
space. Narrow bike lanes and speeding cars create a risky environment for cyclists. Increased auto traffic
has led to noise pollution and air pollution. As we look to creative solutions to mitigate the unfolding
environmental crisis of climate change, which is largely due to increased carbon emissions, it's
imperative we pursue bold options. The EmX option would provide for improved multimodal amenities
and a safer corridor for all users, especially cyclists and pedestrians. Creative thinking about using
electric vans for neighborhood connectors as neighborhood connectors and the River Road
neighborhood has real merit. Supporting the EmX option can achieve reduction in vehicle miles traveled
as well as improvements for all users. I support the EmX option as the best way to create a reimagined
transportation corridor that best supports local businesses and housing development, will best serve to
calm the burden of increased auto traffic, and importantly has the best plans for supporting bike and
pedestrian users. It will move our transportation system into the 21st century. Thank you.
Exhibit 5
Page 206 of 290
Mike Eyster (from transcript of oral testimony on October 21, 2019)
Good evening Mayor and Council. My name is Mike Eyster. I live in Springfield. I want to start by
commending LTD for the fine work they've done. We are a pioneer of EmX, the new EmGo system, the
new fare system that's in place, Transit Tomorrow, MovingAhead - we’re on the cutting edge of a
number of things. I’m proud to be in a community that is on that cutting edge and good work to you,
LTD. I’m here tonight to say that I had chaired the board of LTD for five years, served on the board for 8
years. I’m an advocate of ltd and EmX. At the same time, I’m aware that it's important to use the right
tool for the right job, and I don't think EmX is the right tool for every job. I think it is a good tool for
many jobs, but I think that the enhanced plus corridor is probably the right direction to go for the five
corridors under consideration. It’s important we get good value for the public dollar that's spent. It’s
important that whatever you build you can afford to operate with our ongoing operational budget and
it's important that the infrastructure be affordable as well. I think our public insists on that. We owe that
to them. I think we have a good solution with enhanced plus. I encourage you to adopt the enhanced
plus solution and wish you best of luck as you weigh your decision. Thank you.
Exhibit 5
Page 207 of 290
Seth Sadofsky (from transcript of oral testimony on October 21, 2019)
Good evening Mayor, Councilors, and LTD Board members. My name is Seth Sadofsky. I live in Eugene in
Ward 2. I rely on the bus for my daily transportation needs. As we try to plan our transportation future
for the city we should keep our goals in mind. Our transportation goals include reducing greenhouse
gases, safety, equity and convenience. Our current system meets those goals pretty well if you are an
unusually confident bicyclist or if you're lucky enough to live in one of the most convenient parts of the
city. Otherwise, most adults take most trips alone in two-ton combustible death machines. On average 6
people are killed and 35 people suffer serious life changing injuries due to car crashes in Eugene every
year. The majority of these deaths and injuries occur on the same major transportation corridors we are
discussing today. Therefore, it is imperative we work seriously on safety improvements as part of any
moving ahead implementation. In order to meet our city’s goals we need fewer and smaller cars, more
and better bus service, safer and more comfortable places to walk and bike, and development patterns
that put new businesses and residences near these facilities. As we look at the MovingAhead planning
documents, it seems Enhanced Corridors will bring us nearly as close to all these goals as full EmX for
these corridors at a fraction of the cost up front and operating cost, and hopefully a fraction of the time
frame required for constructing full EmX lines. In addition to doing our best to build the Enhanced
Corridors, we need to make needed safety improvements that would be included in the full EmX for all
of these thoroughfares as efficiently as possible. We should accelerate the Enhanced Corridor work as
much as possible and get appropriate safety improvements along with better sidewalks, crossings
lighting and intersection priority for buses. We need to get serious about encouraging transit oriented
development around these corridors as transit improves. This can be a difficult chicken and egg
problem, but committing to a plan for the future can help spur development in the right places. Thanks
for your time.
Exhibit 5
Page 208 of 290
Theresa Parker (from transcript of oral testimony on October 21, 2019)
Good evening. My name is Theresa Parker. I live at 18th and Jefferson in Ward 1. I retired from Lane
Transportation District in January of 2013 as their Accessible Services Manager at the time. Thank you all
for stepping up and committing yourselves to doing the demanding work of listening. I've been to many
of these sessions over the last year, and I really think you do a great job of paying attention and
listening, and I know that's not always easy. I only speak for myself. However, I’d like to acknowledge
the work of BEST, League of Women Voters, and 350 Eugene to inform and dig deep on local
transportation issues and opportunities. I have two points that I’d like to make. The first is the overriding
urgency of climate change and the need to act in accordance with that reality. Our focus going forward
should be to look through the lens of climate action and do everything within our power to reduce
greenhouse gases and other polluting emissions. It really is time to come forward with an action plan.
Particularly within the transportation sector. That's why I’m really encouraged by the recent work Lane
Transit District has done to compile their first greenhouse gas inventory and to establish a board ad hoc
committee on sustainability. Thank you and I’ll be right there with you. Enhanced Corridor plus offers
the quickest turn-around on our investment. A second lane on Franklin Boulevard should be considered
for its potential to meet demand that we know is there. It would be great for River Road residents to see
their efforts continue into something tangible before a decade goes by and Highway 99 needs safety
features for those who have limited transportation choices. Thank you for working with the Friendly
Area Neighborhood. The intersection improvement at 19th and Jefferson was much needed and makes
my life feel so much safer. And I also want to thank you because I think we had a conversation not too
long ago about ‘don't we do something right occasionally?’ Of course you do, I love those things when
you come up to the bike light and you can figure out where the bike needs to be so the light goes on. I
remember a dark winter night leaving LTD late on my bike, you can we get a card to get in the gate, but
your car just passes out to trigger the gate to leave. I spent 15 minutes driving around in a circle trying to
find the little thing on the ground that would open the gate. I'm sure you guys have fixed that by now.
It's been a while. I want to thank you and, again, thank you for listening.
Exhibit 5
Page 209 of 290
Claire Ribaud (from transcript of oral testimony on October 21, 2019)
I'm Claire Ribaud, I live in ward 1. I volunteer with 350 Eugene, in addition to living in this fine town. The
regional transportation greenhouse gas reduction plan requires more than doubling the transit ridership
of 10 million by 2035. None of the proposed packages get anywhere close. We need more and more
effective solutions. Sidewalks are the capillaries of this system. Right now they are frequently absent, or
they are isolated, or they are impassable. For equity, for safety, for connection we need to publicly fund
sidewalk infill and maintenance. These are public roads for pedestrians. Dedicate a network of roads to
pedestrian, bike, and bus only. Operate neighborhood commuter vans to and from bus stops. Install
solar power collection and storage to support the electrification of transit and to build resilience.
Whatever the specific strategies may be. Every aspect of regional planning interacts with transit.
Powerful transit and climate solutions will be designed, built and funded using that synergy. All of these
packages in concert will bring us to success with our climate action plan. Thank you.
Exhibit 5
Page 210 of 290
Jack Taylor (from transcript of oral testimony on October 21, 2019)
Mayor, Councilors, Board members, and staff. My name is Jack Taylor. I live at 13th and Olive in Eugene.
That’s ward 1. And I went shopping on the EmX today and walked to this meeting. My priority for
transportation expenditures over the next 10 years is to address the climate crisis by reducing
greenhouse gas emissions while enhancing social equity. While I support ltd and city staff to make
technical decisions, in looking at the list of criteria out in the lobby, I wonder where the greenhouse gas
emissions and the climate crisis were, because they weren't on that list. Why didn't they make the list of
criteria for these five investment options? For me, the most important expenditures in this ten-year
time frame are mostly around the Enhanced Corridor plus package, but they are two generally. One is to
increase the frequency and coverage of bus service and restriping travel lanes for safety. That means
adding buses, drivers, and shelters more than greenhouse gas intensive heavy construction. EmX buses
are heavy. They require concrete. Concrete is a heavy greenhouse gas method. Of course, that also
means heavier public outreach, because, like most of the people in this room we need to get people out
of their cars, not just to increase ridership, but increase the ridership of people who would otherwise
drive. The other expenditure would be replacing diesel buses with electric buses at every opportunity,
both full size buses and small ones like ride source uses. In general, like Greta said our house is on fire,
please act like it.
Exhibit 5
Page 211 of 290
Matt McCrae (from transcript of oral testimony on October 21, 2019)
Hello, LTD board, City Council. My name is Matt McCrae, I live in Ward 1. I want to start by thanking you
all for taking the time to hear us. I would reiterate the last speaker's comments that we should be asking
about and reporting the greenhouse gas emissions with the options that are before you. When I ride a
bus across town, I use far less fuel than when I make the same trip by car. Transit is a powerful tool to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and you know this. It's the reason that Eugene’s Climate Action Plan
has several priority actions focused specifically on transit. Recent analysis suggested emissions for
passenger vehicles would be some 25 percent higher if we didn't have transit. Twenty-five percent more
emissions than if we didn't have the transit we have today. In the box of good decisions, we’ve made
really great investments, but we need to continue to use that tool. In addition to reducing greenhouse
gas emissions, transit improves air quality and dramatically reducing costs for health care. Better transit
service serves to reduce some of the social inequities that are built into every single block of our current
transportation system. All of the great innovations that come with EmX can decrease travel times and
increase ridership and increased frequency in and of itself can decrease travel times and increase
ridership. We need to do the smartest mix of both. Finally, there is no time to waste. The best available
science says we need to be off of fossil fuels in 30 years if we want to avoid some really painful
outcomes. Appropriately, this is the goal that Eugene City Council adopted for our community: near zero
emissions by 2050. City councilors, this is one of the biggest tools in the transportation toolbox. We will
have to investment boldly in our transportation system if we want to meet our climate, health, and
safety goals. We need the best transit system we can afford and we can't wait ten years to make it
happen. Thank you.
Exhibit 5
Page 212 of 290
Kaarin Knudsen (from transcript of oral testimony on October 21, 2019)
Good evening. Kaarin Knudsen ward 3. Architect and project lead with better housing together. Hello,
Council, Mayor, LTD Board and City Manager. Thank you first, collectively, for your service to this
community. I to want being by raise one statistic the people in this community that you're serving are
very familiar with. That is: more than 60 percent of the median household increase goes to the cost of
housing and transportation alone. Sixty cents of every dollar to housing and transportation costs alone.
This is in part because we face a housing crisis and we need your continued action on that front, but also
because we need expand transportation options and give people more affordable transportation
options, and more safe active transportation options to meet their daily needs. So expanding
transportation options and improving service, those are both meaningful ways related to your
discussion tonight that we can respond to this challenging statistics and help the community and the
people that are part of this community. I think there's no question, as you all deliberate and you have
conversations in the community that frequent and reliable transit service is necessary, that we need to
do the work to expand this system, and I hope you will be really clear in your work to share that with
others and to advocate and work towards those outcomes. We need frequent, reliable service. That
could be Transit Tomorrow plus Enhanced Corridors and partially EmX. What matters is the frequent
reliable service. It matters we are making improvements at the same time to all modes, giving people
more options how they move around safely in this community, showing them we prioritize their safety
and their needs. But the work doesn't stop there. It really doesn't stop with just thinking about the
transportation corridor and our transportation network. We need to think about more than that at a
time and we need for you all to think about and support more than just that issue at one time. So in
close, I’ll simply say, I would ask you to turn to the Board member or City Councilor sitting next to you
and ask that you each support each other's work in these coming months and years. City Councilors,
please do everything you can to help us to implement a transportation system that is frequent, that is
reliable, that is the envy of the world and indeed serves the world when they come here to visit us. And
LTD Board members please do everything you can to ensure and encourage that our community
continue to do the work, to expand housing options and implement meaningful housing solutions and
housing supply along the transportation corridors. Frequency of transit service, transportation options,
and housing together is the complete picture that we are looking for in serving the community. So thank
you for working towards those ends.
Exhibit 5
Page 213 of 290
Jim Neu (from transcript of oral testimony on October 21, 2019)
Mayor, Council, and LTD Board, thank you for holding this public hearing. My name is Jim Neu. I live in
the Santa Clara area in Claire Syrett's ward. I regularly attended the Envision Eugene workshops for the
River Road-Santa Clara area. Public transit and safe bike/ped rights of way were overwhelmingly
supported in public participant feedback. The Beltline Highway repeatedly came up as a barrier to
current north-south transit travel between the two neighborhoods. Safe bike/ped corridors and
frequent public transit options would improve accessibility between the two neighborhoods. All the
proposed EmX packages should be considered by all of you. However, the City of Eugene Climate Action
Plan has a sector based greenhouse gas emission gap of 450,000 mega tons of CO2. The city and LTD
should prioritize adopting and implementing the highest level option for each corridor. Providing the
highest level of bike/ped safety and transit ridership would close this greenhouse gap in the most
expeditious manner. The IPCC has stated we have 10 years to implement plans to reduce our global
climate carbon footprint. Your decision are one means locally to achieve that goal. Cost should not be a
factor if you consider what the cost would be if you were try and do this ten years from now. By then it
might be too late to start and we are not afforded the luxury of time. Thank you for your service.
Exhibit 5
Page 214 of 290
Carmen Fore (from transcript of oral testimony on October 21, 2019)
Good evening. My name is Carmen Fore. Mayor, Councilor, and LTD Board Members - I'm a resident of
Ward 2 and sorry to have lumped that a little all over the place. I've really enjoyed the comments I’ve
heard tonight and want to really associate myself with a lot of them. But really, the importance of
climate change is a paramount issue before our community and before our world. Transit really stood as
a really important option and a tool in our tool chest to really reduce GHG reduction. I'm a frequent bus
rider and it's a really important service for me, but what is key in that service - for me being a bus rider -
is the frequency of that ride. I think oftentimes when we talk to our neighbors, what is it they need on
the street if they need to get to the grocery store, if they need to reliably get home to pick up their kids
from school, if they need to be able to get to a medical appointment on time, or even if they're working
late at night so they can get home safely at night – is that service available to them so they can get home
safely at night. And we do know that some of our neighbors sleep in the workplace because there isn’t a
way for them to get home safely at the end of the day. When we are looking at transit ridership and all
the health options, all the social, equity and diversity inclusion issues that we need to bear in mind, a lot
of it is how are folks living and how are we going to get them taking the transit trip a bit more frequently
and how do people really live? We’ve been a community - and as I’ve traveled to talk to people in
transportation sectors that look to this community as a model both in terms of the early adoption of
accessibility for people with disabilities in our communities on those transit trips to being the smallest
community in the country to adopt BRT, we have been a role model. Ultimately we do need to be
looking at options in the near term that provide the most accessible number of trips and start changing
those patterns for those folks who that have the ability to make that choice, but also for our neighbors
in our community who don't have a choice or find at times they are stuck in their home because the
options to get around for them are just challenging. What's great about the debate we are having right
now, it's not if we should be investing in transit at all, which is often the debate that’s going on in most
of the communities around our country. We are debating what type of transit we want to have. And to
that end, I think that really what can serve the vast majority of people in the greater region in addition
to meeting these larger social objectives are what we need to have forefront in our minds right now.
Thank you for your consideration.
Exhibit 5
Page 215 of 290
Barbara Perrin (from transcript of oral testimony on October 21, 2019)
Hi. My name is Barbara Perrin, and I live in South Eugene. I’ve associated with 350 and also with BEST,
and I think that members that both of those organizations have laid out all the very, very definitely
important reasons why transit can help with the climate crisis, so I’m not going to go over that except to
say I second all of the reasons they've given. What I would like to say, is that I’m very grateful to LTD. I
began riding the bus a few years ago because I needed to fit within a suddenly very reduced budget, and
I found that it was a remarkable change in my lifestyle. I walked many, many more blocks and eventually
miles than I ever had before, and I also got the satisfaction of knowing I was not driving a car, not
participating in the degradation of our climate, and I was happy about doing that. So I would like to say
that it's very important, and I second Kaarin’s -- I guess she left - message about having the community
build and have housing and transportation accessible. So many people drive because they have no
option, they have no option to get to -- I happen to rent an apartment that's close to a bus stop, but if
things change, if things start to become, you know, much more centralized, I’m going to have to move.
I’m going to have to find another place to live that's close to a bus because I’m a dedicated bus rider
now. So I just want to put that out there as another way to look at what you are making decisions about.
In closing, I’d like to say that one of the things that just recently occurred to me was riding a bus is kind
of like a mobile commons, it brings the community together in a way that people going their own
individual ways and own individual cars never happens, and I think that's something to celebrate too
about transit. Thank you very much.
Exhibit 5
Page 216 of 290
Patty Hine (from transcript of oral testimony on October 21, 2019)
Good evening, LTD commissioners and City Councilors, it's nice to see you. My name is Patty Hine, and I
live in the county. I volunteer with 350 Eugene, a grassroots climate justice organization a few people
here have referred to. I really am grateful for these public hearings. I started to be at more of them than
I ever thought I ever would be, and I am humbled by how much work gets done and the public hearing
part is an important part of our democracy. I treasure that along the public input idea, the 350 Eugene
group has been working with the city of Eugene on its climate action plan for some years and we have
been doing a lot of work with them. About a year ago we said we want to have more community input
and we said we are going to stick our necks out and have some town halls that have to do with climate
and see what the community has the appetite for. What are they most interested in. I think you'll like to
know. Last February we had a town hall down at the temple Beth Israel, where 250 citizens showed up
and we had very good speakers who just laid it out for us, tell us what it is most important to you, the
city of Eugene would do and its partners to combat climate breakdown that has been so well described
here and we know it's coming. 3 of the 6 highest priority items had to do with transportation. The first
one was make walking and biking safer. The second one increase ridership on transit. And from that we
held another town hall on transportation explicitly because it was obviously of such interest to the
community and then no less than 6 new subgroups have formed to do climate advocacy specifically
where electric vehicles are concerned, transit is concerned - Phil Barnhart talked about another club, it’s
not a 350 club, but nonetheless he's off and running on a very interesting enterprise for a state
sponsored EV group. There's also a walker's group. Some of those people are now starting to appear in
every public forum where I’ve been appearing, and so what you see here is grassroots organizing at its
finest direct from the public coming forward to speak with our elected officials and our representatives.
I'm proud to see a lot of those people here. I'm here because I wear this t shirt everywhere. It is my
uniform and a lot of other people's uniform too. It is because we are scared to death about what the
international panel on climate change from the UN has said. Other people have spoken about it. It’s our
11 or so years, 10 years. I like to refer to what Naomi Klein says often when she’s speaking. She says
there are some things that are broken in the world, and they are big features of our earth, the coral reef,
the amazon is on fire, and what was the other one. The ice sheets are melting. These are huge features
of our earth and they're broken, thank you for your boldest action.
Exhibit 5
Page 217 of 290
Richard Self (from transcript of oral testimony on October 21, 2019)
Thank you. I’m Richard Self, with Ward 1, I believe. My heart is in Ward 9 and will forever be. I am with
House Everyone, and I see you folks often enough that it's almost like being among friends. I am a
homeless advocate, and so I’d like to address LTD in that regard. So I’m speaking as folks -- for people
that have no voice and often have no phone, so may not be able to use your nifty new app. So in that
regard, I am here today to encourage LTD, as I understand, for those folks not able to use that app, you'll
have swipe cards, and I’m here to encourage LTD to provide as many more day passes to those swipe
cards to the service providers they provide to now. More so, as possible, because one or two a month is
grossly inadequate. A pregnant woman interviewed by the Homeless Outreach Committee of House
Everyone was needing to see her physician, had already used her one day pass for the month. A week
later she was interviewed by the same committee members of the homeless outreach and had
miscarried. She had no other means of transportation. So I ask in my humble capacity that LTD provide
more resources in conjunction with the city for the homeless as in more day passes available in
whatever form they may manifest and to allow the unhoused access to ride LTD in whatever form the
buses are or corridors within reason for purposes of getting to and from meal sites, warming centers,
day centers, shelters, physicians, housing appointments, jobs, et cetera. So no one goes hungry. This is a
meal, an appointment, or miscarries, thank you for your time. Thank you for your time.
Exhibit 5
Page 218 of 290
Julie Daniel (from transcript of oral testimony on October 21, 2019)
Good evening, Councilors and good evening LTD Board. I’m Julie Daniel, I live in Alan Zelenka's ward.
And I’m a big fan of transit and I echo all the sentiments that have been said tonight about increasing
the frequency, but I want to give you a bike rider's perspective. I use a bike for in town travel. In fact, I
rode here tonight and there's not enough bike parking. It was all full by the time I got there. There's one
thing you can fix. I support the Enhanced Corridor option for MovingAhead with the addition of bike and
pedestrian improvements that the EmX option offers. Councilors, you recently reviewed the Climate
Action Plan 2.0 transportation strategies. This was pointed out in Mayor Vinis’ blog. We need more
people on bikes, more people on buses, and a lot fewer car trips. Now, bikes are like cars in one
important respect: no planning is required. When you want to go somewhere, it's just dead easy. You
get on your bike, you hop on, and you go. To use public transit, whether it's a bus or an EmX, you do
have to figure out the schedule, the route, how to get to the bus stop, if there's a bus stop where you're
going to go. It's a lot more work. People love their cars because they provide convenience, autonomy,
and spontaneity, but so do bikes. I find bikes a cheaper, convenient, viable alternative to auto travel, but
I tell you, it's proving very, very challenging to persuade my friends to join me. So why is it so hard to get
people out on their bikes? I can tell you in one word. Fear. Most people view sharing the streets with
cars as inherently dangerous. Vision Zero emphasizes this point. Three of the arterials MovingAhead
evaluated - River Road, Coburg Road, and Highway 99 - are identified in Vision Zero as high crash streets.
Now that's a heart-warming thought: crashes that disproportionately harm pedestrians and cyclists.
Now, I’m one of those confident, if aging and feeling more vulnerable, bike riders. I’ve ridden year round
for over a decade. I ride in nearly every part of town. I've ridden all those arterials in the last month. I
tell you, it takes some nerve. Try riding through the Belt Line River Road intersection for white knuckle
high adrenaline thrills. All that protects me from a ton of fast-moving steel is this helmet, some flashing
lights and a reflective vest. It doesn't feel very safe, let me tell you. I know lots of older people like me
who would like to use a bike more often. These are folks who really worry about climate change. When
they go to Denmark, they ride their bikes, so that's it.
Exhibit 5
Page 219 of 290
Nick Dikas (from transcript of oral testimony on October 21, 2019)
Good evening, everyone. My name is Nick Dikas. I live in Ward 4 on Harlow Rd. You've seen me with 350
and the Sunrise Movement, but today I’m here representing myself and my wife. I bike to work nearly
every day. I’m lucky for that to be a relatively quick and safe way to get to work. It’s faster than taking
the bus for me. My wife takes the bus every day. I also have the fortune of having a plug-in hybrid which
we mostly use for shopping and long distance travel. I would like to talk about supporting a middle way
tonight. I’m not in the EmX or bus group. I also think no build is not an option. I think we need to make
sure that we are not running buses super frequently to places where there isn't demand, but I also
appreciate ideas like BEST's recommendation for Enhanced Corridor plus. I don't think Enhanced
Corridor plus is enough. I think we need to be talking about Packages C and D, which is EmX on River
Road and EmX on Coburg Road. I think this moment demands that we set our sights reasonably high
here. This is a ten-year plan to my understanding, so we need to imagine what Eugene is going to look
like in ten years. Estimates are that population will grow about 40,000 people by 2035 and within the
county, about 67,000 people. There’s going to be -- we need densification around transit. We also need
to be thinking about how traffic is going to get worse. If you've ever seen Ferry Street Bridge or Coburg
Road at rush hour, you know it's already bad. Just imagine how much worse it’s going to get. We need to
start planning for that worse it's going to get now. Ten years is also the time frame to become carbon
neutral as a planet. So we are talking about adding EmX on River Road - that's 213,000 additional riders
each year. Add in Coburg Road, an additional 195,000. So that's the equivalent, if you add them
together, 408,000 more rides - 16,660 football fields of cars off the road every year You can imagine the
less pollution, the less noise, the less frustration and quality of life issues there. Research shows that
people are happier when they get out of their cars. These buses need to be electric or hydrogen. I
believe we'll find federal funding because people in ten years will be in the streets when they find that
they can't live or breathe. Benefits of EmX include a brand people trust, it’s cool, it’s fast, you look out
the window and see it keep coming so you're going to try that, especially if your option is waiting in
traffic. we need the shelters, the seating, the next bus sign, all those things when people come visit they
say this is a place I can live, this place has its priorities straight. Thank you.
Exhibit 5
Page 220 of 290
Linda Perrine (from transcript of oral testimony on October 21, 2019)
Good evening. I'm Linda Perrine, in un-incorporated Eugene, out on highway 58. I do want to echo
everyone thanking you for holding this joint hearing, it's really, really nice to hear the positive comments
out of the audience tonight, as well as just the encouragement to work on an integrated all-
encompassing solution for transport. As you know, you have a gap strategy to deal with for the Climate
Action Plan, and I want to echo Matt McCrae's comment about how the LTD options should really have
greenhouse gas analysis numbers to go with it. So I would encourage the council to ask LTD to produce
that. I also want to echo Phil Barnhart’s comments about needing an integrated solution. My front row
view on Highway 58 tells me there's a whole lot more commute traffic going on that major artery in and
out of Eugene every day of the week than there has and in the past ten years. So while I know this city
council only is here to address the internal city solution for transport, you have a lot of people coming in
on Highway 126, both east and west side, as well as Highway 58 in and out of the city, that’s not being
addressed by this plan. The other thing is LTD options out in the lobby, leave me wondering about
where all these people that come in on a corridor, what is their solution once they're in town. So biking,
walking, those solutions, we really need an integrated answer to the solution that LTD is putting
forward, and how does that end up affecting walking, and biking, and parking bikes, and making those
transfers. I want to also encourage -- Sarah Mazze got up and spoke earlier, she has an excellent
presentation from her trip to Copenhagen. 4J granted her some money to go over there and learn how
biking affects the Copenhagen culture. She gave this at the River Road Neighborhood Association
meeting last Monday, and it's really an excellent talk, which I encourage the city staff and the council to
ask her to show it to you. It shows how Copenhagen made a transition in 25 years from a car-centric
culture to a bike/transit centric culture. You can't solve just one problem with transit only, it's a biking
and transit solution. So we really need to have both sides of that equation to be voted on by the public.
Also, you heard Chelsea Clinton give you the CAP review again this past week, and you all talked about
scooters in that discussion, in your council discussion, more than you did bikes and walking. So it's clear
to me the council is as a body overlooking the value of biking and using biking as a solution. I know
scooters are a fad, they're all over up and down California. They do not have the role to play that bikes
do. Thank you.
Exhibit 5
Page 221 of 290
Meta Maxwell (from transcript of oral testimony on October 21, 2019)
Hello. My name is Meta Maxwell. I'm a resident of north Eugene. My family settled here in 1852, and I
was born here. I'm an avid walker of 20 to 30 miles a week. I use the bike paths. I’ve ridden the EmX
system especially to the U of O where parking is difficult. I have a bachelor's degree in business
administration and master's in agriculture and resource economics and have taught university courses in
accounting and finance. I own commercial property on Coburg Road and on West 6th. Last spring, I was
invited to a transportation open house at the Safeway on Coburg Road and was told I would receive
follow-up call to meet with the planners at my property on Coburg Road to review the MovingAhead
plans, but the call never came. Last week I was sent a notice of this with attachments of over 200 pages,
which I’ve only had the time to scan. But my initial review leaves me with five major concerns I would
like to see addressed in the plan and have time to review before final consideration is given. First, well,
the MovingAhead plan, gives consideration to a population increase of over 34,000 in 10 years, no
consideration seems to be given to an aging of the population. The median age of 34 is skewed by a
part-time college and university population, while my understanding is that retirees account for a large
part of the growth. The population I believe is less healthy, out of shape, and less likely to bike or walk,
and would have difficulty getting to bus stations and using the system for doctors, shopping, and
entertainment. Secondly, I see no projections for an increase in single vehicle transportation which I’d
expect to accompany an increase in this population, despite people's desire fewer cars. Third, no
consideration is given to climate change. With hotter summers and colder winters, again, it becomes
more difficult to get to and from the bus stations and less favorable for biking or walking. I see the
dedicated EmX lanes largely unused while adjacent lanes are crowded with cars. So maybe making those
partly carpool lanes and allowing all electric vehicles would be some good options to help lower the
transportation. Number four, I haven't seen specific plans. I'll follow up with a letter. Thank you.
Exhibit 5
Page 222 of 290
Claire Roth (from transcript of oral testimony on October 21, 2019)
Good evening Mayor, City Council, and LTD Board. Thank you all for being here tonight. My name’s
Claire Roth. I work with Better Eugene Springfield Transportation, aka BEST, as safe streets coordinator. I
live in the Whiteaker district in ward 7. I want to highlight the importance of the complete streets logic
outlined under the handful of safety plans our city is pursuing, such as the vision zero action plan
adopted back in march. While choosing the best option, which we at best are referring to as the
enhanced corridor plus, and as you've heard about tonight from some of my peers, we must not forget
to prioritize pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure projects as well. A city with complete streets where all
modes of transportation and people of all abilities and ages can navigate safely is a successful and
prosperous one. Eugene has all of the tools and more and all of the clever minds to make this happen.
Thank you for your time.
Exhibit 5
Page 223 of 290
Bob Passaro (from transcript of oral testimony on October 21, 2019)
Hello, thank you all for being here and working together on this. Obviously needs both organizations. My
name is Bob Passaro. I live in Ward 1. I'm currently on the BEST board of directors and in the past served
on the city's Active Transportation Committee, known at the time as BPAC, and I’m co-owner of a
business just a few blocks from here. So I moved to Eugene 22 years ago to take a job at the Register
Guard and ended up buying a house at 17th and Lawrence. And being the kind of person that used the
bike to get around ever since I was a kid, I found myself spending a lot of time on Coburg Road in the
bike lane commuting the five miles to work. Sometimes I drove. I'm not a fanatic. On occasion I took the
bus. And I’m thankful there's a bike lane on Coburg Road and thankful the bus was available, but you
know it's obvious the bike lane is not for everyone as Julia pointed out. Riding a bus to work took me
twice as long as to drive and longer than it would take to ride my bike to work. So I mention all of this
because I think it's important as you come to the end of this MovingAhead planning process, that - to
think about the value of providing better options for various modes of transportation. Various modes of
travel and all these important arteries in town in addition to just transit. Better, safer, more efficient,
practical options. I'm sure that's easy. So not all trips are the same, not all modes of travel are
appropriate for every trip. I think that's what this needs to be about. As we think about addressing the
inevitable congestion brought on by growth of our community, as we think about trying to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, as the city has committed to do, and as we think about reducing injury and
death on the roads, as the city is also committed to do, we may want to consider that one single tool is
not the answer. Maybe it's not one big thing like a large investment in EmX on all these five corridors.
Maybe there's a way to find a more creative mix, appropriate to each street that includes frequent bus
service, safer, more comfortable bike facilities. I think the advent of electric bicycles is going to change
the role of bicycles and make them more practical for many more people. Removal of obstacles to
walking easily and safely when you don't have far to go, availability of bike share, this adorable,
intriguing EmGo thing I keep seeing around, all are pieces of the puzzle and ongoing improvement of all
these pieces. Thank you very much.
Exhibit 5
Page 224 of 290
Tiffany Edwards (from transcript of oral testimony on October 21, 2019)
Mayor Vinis, City Councilors, LTD Board members, I’m Tiffany Edwards of Ward 5, and I’m here to
provide testimony on behalf of the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber recognizes the
thorough and ongoing process in which the city and LTD have been working to engage the community.
Our Local Government Affairs Council had six meetings on the topic over a one year period. We have
specific recommendation to incorporate as you move through the process. Generally, our members
support investments for Enhanced Corridors to ensure more complete streets and improvements to
bike, pedestrian, transit, and vehicular infrastructure. However, the business community felt that there
was further study needed to be able to determine if investments in EmX and on which specific corridors
made sense. So while we are not saying no altogether to EmX, we haven't seen the evidence at this time
that investments would be sound. Our members would like to see specifically how the MovingAhead
project intersects with all of the other planning processes currently under way: Transit Tomorrow,
Envision Eugene, River Road-Santa Clara neighborhood planning, housing tools and strategies,
implementation of House Bill 2001, code changes that may make sense as we grapple well our housing
crisis, and so on. Even projects like Beltline would change the way people move around our community,
but how would those changes impact where we would consider EmX? We know that a robust transit
system and multimodal infrastructure are an asset to the community, but nobody has done the research
to determine what the broader economic impacts would be of making these investments. Cost is a big
factor for the businesses, and we have a lot of competing community needs. Chamber members will
want to know that these are the best ways we can investment and not be beholden to ongoing
operations for a system simply because we sought federal funds. Enhanced Corridors provide flexibility,
but also allow us to plan for future improvements. The Chamber supports Enhanced Corridors and
prioritizing EmX as part of the Franklin Boulevard Transformation project. We support completing
Transit Tomorrow and would like to see stabilization of transit funding sources and continued land use
changes to support desired transit oriented development in line with Envision Eugene. The Chamber is
truly committed and continuing to engage in this community process and are prepared to support what
we can through data, due diligence, and further study. Thank you.
Exhibit 5
Page 225 of 290
David Davini (from transcript of oral testimony on October 21, 2019)
Mayor, City Councilors, LTD Board members, my name is David Davini and I’m a resident of Lane County.
I want to thank you for taking the time to hear from the community on the MovingAhead Alternatives
Analysis. My involvement with MovingAhead began back in 2015 when we hired CSA to do a
performance review on Gateway EmX segment. That review indicated a significant underperformance
compared to projected ridership. Based on that information, I was very concerned when I saw the
community contemplating as many as five additional EmX routes. I'm a supporter of public
transportation, especially for the members of our community with no viable alternative. However, I
cannot support inefficient use of transportation dollars that will result in very few, if any additional
riders and will leave our community with expensive and inflexible infrastructure. Over the years, I have
learned that the best time to get involved with public projects is at the planning phase. Once excavators
arrive on site, it is too late to have meaningful impact. That is why I’m here tonight. In September, 2018,
the City and LTD published a 30 page executive summary in order to help the community better
understand what the over 350 page MovingAhead analysis meant. I read it thoroughly. After a second
thorough read I was still confused, so I hired CSA to interpret the analysis and explain to me what it
means. CSA responded with a 12-page review summarizing what the MovingAhead documents said. It
was provided to the city and LTD earlier this year. I encourage each of you to review that report. My
primary concern with the MovingAhead project is the projections being used to justify the new
segments. Although LTD ridership has decreased almost 30 percent over the past decade, MovingAhead
projects an annual increase of 1.5 percent each in every year for the next 20 years. If that increase were
only 1.2 percent, the all EmX alternative would use approximately $331 million of local dollars and
would produce no additional riders. Given that two of the current three EmX segments are significantly
underperforming their original ridership projections, it is reasonable to assume the MovingAhead
projections are aggressive at best. I have heard concern tonight regarding greenhouse gas emissions. I
share those concerns. Unfortunately, according to the MovingAhead’s internal analysis the all EmX
package actually increases greenhouse gas emissions. Please understand the numbers. Adding
infrastructure to a transportation system that does not reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our current
global warming environment is socially irresponsible. I got urge each of you to take the time to really
understand what MovingAhead is about and understand both the economic and operational
implications to our community. Once the system is in place, it is very expensive to change or alter should
the community wish to do so. Thank you.
Exhibit 5
Page 226 of 290
Peter Bolander (from transcript of oral testimony on October 21, 2019)
Good evening. My name is Peter Bolander. I live in the Santa Clara area. I took the bus here today. It
took me 40 minutes. If the River Road Enhanced Corridor is built, it would take me 35 minutes to get
from my front door to here. If the EmX Alternative was built, it would take, again, 40 minutes. Now ask
yourself, EmX is supposed to be quicker. Well, I live about a mile and a quarter from the Beltline and I
would have to walk an additional distance to get to the end of the EmX line. The EmX line ends partway
up River Road into the Santa Clara area. My concern with that, is that it’s not really serving the people in
the Santa Clara area because the EmX line ends before it really gets into the Santa Clara area. Now I’ve
noticed there is a change to the bus proposals that buses 51, 52 and 55 will be modified. I don't know
how that would be modified. What’s interesting is they say in the report there will be a 30-minute
frequency of the bus services. Well if you look at the existing bus services between 51 and 52, it's
anywhere between 9 and 21 minutes. So a 30-minute delay is even longer. Frequency is even longer
than the current bus service. So again, I ask myself is it really serving the people in the Santa Clara area.
If the purpose and objective is to decrease travel time and increase the ridership, why not consider an
express service -- bus service from Santa Clara into downtown with maybe intermediate stops along the
corridor at Fred Meyer or Silver Lane. My last comment deals with the cost. On the report, the
Alternative Analysis report on page 5-15, addresses a cost for the River Road in terms of dollars per
construction mile, dollars per corridor mile. What I think would be more appropriate to address is
dollars per increase in ridership. Using the information on table 5-21 it gives expected increased
ridership in 2035. So using those numbers and assuming a 30-year period and only the initial
construction cost, the River Road Enhancement Alternative would cost each new rider $20 per trip over
the 30-year period. Using the EmX River Road Alternative, it would cost $9 for each new rider over the
30-year period, those happen to be the second and 9th cost – excuse me, the 6th and 2nd highest cost
of all 9 alternatives. I would ask to make for $24 million to construct the Enhanced Corridor, you could
double the amount of buses on River Road, provide express bus services, and increase ridership close to
the EmX projected ridership. Maybe something to consider, but what I would suggest, and it may be too
late in this process, is maybe consider new package. Thank you for your time.
Exhibit 5
Page 227 of 290
George Rode (from transcript of oral testimony on October 21, 2019)
Good evening, and thank you for all of your hard work. I own, by the way, I own the three oldest
buildings on Franklin Boulevard in Eugene. I love EmX. I think mass transit is really wonderful. I get
concerned when they add another bus lane to it to take any of my sacred eight parking spots away from
two of my properties. That's really, really important. As of being green, I’m proud to say my businesses
have won more awards in Eugene than any other companies, I think times two. I am very, very green.
There's something no one has considered in this. I look at 11th Street - used to be three-lane, now it's
two-lane. There is so much slow traffic on 11th and, by the way, I took climate masters from business,
from Sarah here, I think she's still here, was taught to grab the low fruit. You want to lower the CO, the
emissions in this area? Make traffic flow quicker. Stop stop-and-go traffic. Stop when it takes me three
or four traffic lights to go down 11th during crowded times. We lost a lane in there. 6th Street corridor,
the city traffic engineers have not coordinated Garfield Street with all the other streets. Get the low fruit
first. Reset our traffic lights. Open it for traffic flow better is one of the solutions to lower emissions.
Thank you.
Exhibit 5
Page 228 of 290
Jay Harland (from transcript of oral testimony on October 21, 2019)
Good evening Councilors and Board members. My name is Jay Harland with CSA Planning. I'm here this
evening - our firm has been studying the MovingAhead project for a year - the document that was
published. Our review has been based upon analysis in the supporting documentation, we have not
done any of our own independent modeling or any specific analysis. Put another way, we just accepted
the details that have been done by the professionals that LTD hired for the project. Based on our review,
MovingAhead process puts the LTD Board and City Council, I think, in a pretty difficult position.
Especially for the all EmX Alternative. Selecting the all EmX Alternative would effectively program $331
million of local transportation funds to bus rapid transit between additional operating obligations and
the capital investment over the next 20 years. The Alternatives Analysis should make it pretty straight
forward for you all to understand the choices between the different alternatives and which ones might
make sense to do. I think ultimately that's really not the case. In our opinion the Alternatives Analysis is
pretty difficult to understand, and it's incomplete in several critical respects. One is, as David mentioned,
the ridership trends currently negative, the EmX -- the no build assumptions in the analysis assume that
the ridership will turn around and start going up at 1 1/2 percent per year every year for the next 20
years, it's fine to do projections like that, there should be some explanation of what's going on. What’s
changing? One of the things that has changed here in Eugene is since I came up here for Duck’s games,
there's a lot more student housing near the university it seems like. If you put housing near where
people go, then they don't actually have to get on the bus, they can just walk or bike, as has been
advocated by a lot of people tonight. That's what happens when you get the right mix of land uses near
one another. So I think, there’s no explanation in there about that. That leads into the investment risk,
which has been spoken about a little bit tonight. If the ridership projections don't turn out to be correct,
the cost per ride can be exactly what -- I think it was Mr. Bolander said, we came up with similar
numbers, $9 or $20 a ride. That's pretty expensive. Some other details that aren’t presented, I think, in a
way that are easy to understand. One would be congestion out Coburg Road, there's -- it's pretty hard to
look at the document and understand that there's going to be a pretty significant increase in congestion
there and there's adverse impacts to some of the intersections. Finally, you've heard a lot of testimony
tonight about the GHG emissions, and one of the ladies even commented that should be analyzed. Well
it is analyzed. It’s literally buried in an appendix. It's like k or something, I can't remember off the top of
my head tonight. The reality is all the investment packages that include the EmX cause the GHG
emissions to go up.
Exhibit 5
Page 229 of 290
In person comments* from October 21, 2019 Open House/ Public Meeting
* The original comment forms from the October 21, 2019 Open House/Public meeting were accidently
destroyed, but the information from the comment forms was recorded prior to their destruction in the online
comment collection spreadsheet.
Details Comment
Date received:10/21/2019 As I look at the options I highly recommend either the enhanced
Comment ID: 20191021Korn corridor or EmX on river Road. the most essential aspect is to
improve walkability and safe bike infrastructure. Increasing
Response Type: Comment or frequencies of buses on River road is important but top priority is to
Feedback protect pedestrians and bike riders. Also I request a movement
Comment Received Via: Public towards action and to begin working on infrastructure.
Meeting
Venue Notes: October 21 Public Comment Letter Number: 88
Meeting
Date received:10/21/2019 At this point in development at time of growth the best is to maintain
Comment ID: 20191021Beers the present system without any more cost or build out. Hold the line.
Response Type: Comment or
Feedback
Comment Received Via: Public Comment Letter Number: 89
Meeting
Venue Notes: October 21 Public
Meeting
Date received:10/21/2019 (please no morning calls) Please do not do unnecessary construction.
Comment ID: 20191021Logan A project should be absolutely necessary, with no other option, before
concrete should be poured. Cement is a tremendous polluter,
Response Type: Comment or especially bad in carbon footprint. Steel must be smelted using coal-
Feedback there is no other way. In addition, the acquisition of sand and gravel
Comment Received Via: Public are intrinsically harmful to the Earth. Locally, Willamette Sand and
Meeting Gravel dig pits in the river bed pulling out gravel that has washed
Venue Notes: October 21 Public down from the Cascades over thousands of years, to make cement
Meeting and to pave roads. Then they back-fill these pits in the riverbed with
demolition waste. (almost always something is demolished before
something new is built, and all buildings are eventually demolished.)
Buttes around town are destroyed for building materials. Building near
the river is particularly nasty, since non-point pollution is the primary
source of Willamette River pollution near Eugene. Roundup, cleaning
Comment Letter Number: 90 chemicals, petroleum and other poisons, used by industry,
construction and housing near the River seep into the Willamette
River, making it un-swimmable, More construction=more pollution.
In addition to global warming, river pollution and all the
downstream ills of construction, we the neighbors, have to adjust to a
more cramped and ugly environment. More transportation is built to
attract more building. When it is in one place, the new apartment
blocks are attracted so EMX is one thin edge of a disastrous wedge.
Instead of building a "River Road Corridor", ho about extending
increased ridership to the lanes, with more convenient connectors.
How about serving the already blighted regions- W. 11th and Hwy.
99- with increased efficiency, since that's where a lot of homeless
need to go. Most middle-class travelers do not ride the bus, because
it doesn't come to our homes or go where we are trying to get.
River Road is special. It’s a garden neighborhood and we don't
need more "development".
Please choose "No Build" for the " River road Corridor" We don't
need a corridor. We just need better bus service into the homes.
Exhibit 5
Page 230 of 290

To: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager; Steven Yett; Carl Yeh; Don Nordin; Emily Secord;
Joshua Skov; Caitlin Vargas; Kate Reid
Cc: MEDARY Sarah J; RODRIGUES Matt J; INERFELD Rob; HENRY Chris C; RICHARDSON Brian J; HOSTICK
Robin A; HARDING Terri L; NELSON Ethan A; Aurora Jackson; Mark Johnson; Tom Schwetz; MARTIN
Andrew (SMTP); Theresa Brand; Pat Walsh; MovingAhead
Subject: BEST recommends "Enhanced Corridor PLUS" for MovingAhead
Attachments: BEST Enhanced Corridor PLUS 2019-10-21.pdf; Untitled attachment 00114.html;
Importance: High
Attached for your reference is the “Enhanced Corridor PLUS” one‐pager BEST distributed at the MovingAhead public
hearing.
Please note that this is intended to not be a new proposal but merely a handy moniker and distillation of the more
detailed “MovingAhead Analysis & Recommendations” we shared previously.
Again, if you have questions or concerns, please let us know.
Best wishes,
Rob
Exhibit 5
Page 231 of 290
Enhanced Corridor PLUS
We support our community’s vision for complete streets, Vision Zero, and compact urban
development to advance the triple bottom line of people, prosperity and planet.
ENHANCED CORRIDOR. As the best return on

investment, we recommend selecting Enhanced Corridor as the
locally preferred alternative for each of the MovingAhead
corridors, following Portland’s example in adopting this newer
way to support frequent and useful transit service.
PLUS. We further recommend:

• Safety Improvements: Make safety improvements
along each of the MovingAhead corridors—at the same
level as planned for the EmX alternatives.
• Franklin Boulevard Transformation: Prioritize

building a second EmX track past the UO to be able to
provide more frequent service to meet higher demand.
• Other Actions: To leverage MovingAhead investments,

strategically pursue other coordinated actions necessary
to advance transportation, housing, climate change and
other livability goals, for example:
o Transit Tomorrow: Implement the planned Frequent
Transit Network (FTN) to provide useful transit to more
riders in the Eugene-Springfield area.
o Stable Transit Service: Develop stable sources of funding
sufficient to provide the level of transit service the
community needs through economic boom and bust cycles.
o Right-of-Way: Change setback requirements to protect
needed rights-of-way for future bus rapid transit (BRT).
o Land Use: Adopt land use changes to support desired
transit-oriented development in line with Envision Eugene.
Building a successful community by bringing people together to promote

transportation options, safe streets, and walkable neighborhoods.
Exhibit 5
Page 232 of 290

Subject: FW: Moving Ahead City Council LTD Board Public Hearing | Oct 31, 2019
From: RICHARDSON Brian J <BRichardson@eugene‐or.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Moving Ahead City Council LTD Board Public Hearing | Oct 31, 2019
Get Outlook for iOS
From: williamRANDALL <bill@arborsouth.com>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2019 3:05:15 PM
Subject: Moving Ahead City Council LTD Board Public Hearing | Oct 31, 2019
[EXTERNAL ]
Mayor, Councillors and Manager:
I had planned on attending and testifying tonight, but am not going to be able to. Please accept the enclosed as my
testimony via email.
Thank you!
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
I’m Bill Randall. I live at 1491 Lawrence Street, Eugene in Councillor Semple’s Ward. I also served on
the Eugene Planning Commission for 10 years and until my term ended in June of this year, I was a
Planning Commission liaison to the Moving Ahead Sounding Board.
I come here tonight to encourage you to support BEST’s recommendation of Enhanced Corridors as
the preferred alternatives. I make this recommendation after a lot of thought and consideration. I have
always been a huge EmX proponent. And while I’m fortunate enough to be able to bike and walk
most places in town, when I do ride the bus, it is almost always the EmX.
I like the raised, covered platforms, the frequency of buses (I rarely have to check a schedule) and
the ease of use. However, looking at the infrastructure and operating costs for EmX and the ability to
get a lot more transit service for the same amount of money, I have changed my opinion and support
Enhanced Corridors.
Exhibit 5
Page 233 of 290
With our focus on complete streets, the stops can also be enhanced. That’s relatively easy. Yet the
frequency of buses is probably the key element for me (and I think most people) and that could be
done with regular (maybe electric) buses just as well as the EmX.
I’d also encourage the integration of frequent transit concepts with the corridor planning process such
as what is already happening in the River Road Neighborhood Plan.
And, my opinion would be to focus our efforts on the River Road area and the Bethel area and
Highway 99 corridor. River Road, as I’ve said, because of the neighborhood planning already going
on there. And Bethel and Highway 99 because I believe that area could benefit the most from more
frequent transit service. We have a large segment of our community living in this area and residents
have a lower per capita automobile ownership rate. That would mesh well with better, more frequent
transit service.
On a related topic, I’d also encourage Council to make the Bethel/Highway 99 area the next area for
us to develop a Neighborhood Plan.
As always, thank you for your service to our community.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
billRANDALL
architect/senior principal/csba/leed ap bd+c
p: 541‐344‐3332
380 Lincoln Street
please consider the environment before printing this email
Exhibit 5
Page 234 of 290
From: Devon <questions@movingahead.org>

Name:Devon
Organization:
Email: devong923@gmail.com
Phone: 4582104836
Comments:
I would go with enhanced option,because it is better for the community and it will create jobs. I think it will be beneficial
for the city of eugene oregon. We hope you will understand how importants and hard it will be to make the right choice
of the projects options. I truly understand if it is not what i like to consider, i understand. Thank you and have a great
day.
Exhibit 5
Page 235 of 290
1 lli k again on ErnX expansion
The Re gis ter- Guard article
on the prospect of EmX ser-
vice was an accurate recant of
LTD's perspective for its five
proposed transit corridors.
But there are mL )re consid-
erations that w( re not fully
explored. For example, the
innocuous-sounding 30th
Avenue to LCC corridor,
where no parking, business
or residences e:,:ist along the
route does sound harmless,
But in terms of impact it A vt,h
should really be. named the
Pearl and Oak s! reet corridor,
where between iith Avenue
and 20th Avenue this EmX
alternative would change
these last two remaining
"great streets" ~In Eugene
significantly and forever.
The physical consequence
would be a dedicated EmX
travel lane with numer-
ous long transil platforms,
removal of 140 on-street
parking spaces, removal of
98 medium-to-large trees
and a half-acre taken by emi-
nent domain.
The social consequences
would be equaYy disastrous
in changing these neighbor-
hoods from being a charming
destination of choice to
instead being another cor-
ridor from the city center
hub to somewhere else. All
D.C. Cork
this would be t ) save two Cowboy's Savannah, LLC
minutes of ride time for the S. Eugene Professional Plaza
LCC students who have 74 E. 18"', Suite 0
always had a st:ibl e popula - Eugene, Oregon 97401
tion. Having a reliable transit
system is important but not
at any cost.
Eric Vance, Eugene
Exhibit 5
Page 236 of 290
From: George Jessie <geojess@comcast.net>

Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 8:47 AM
From: George Jessie <geojess@comcast.net>
Message:
I advocate for the "No Build" alternative. I believe there are more effective and efficient plans for improving the transit
options in the Eugene‐Springfield areas. We certainly need to improve and maintain the existing roadways and
bikeways. Bus service can be enhanced by utilizing existing roads, with improved "pull‐outs" that do not impede other
traffic flows. This is a much less costly method of improving bus service. The cost of EmX style service is prohibitive with
little service improvement.
Relevant Corridors:
Contact Options:
Exhibit 5
Page 237 of 290

Sent: Friday, October 25, 2019 8:24 AM
Subject: FW: Testimony for MovingAhead Joint Public Hearing 10-21-2019
Flag Status: Flagged
From: FORREST Beth L <BForrest@eugene‐or.gov>
Subject: FW: Testimony for MovingAhead Joint Public Hearing 10‐21‐2019
More testimony ‐
Subject: Testimony for MovingAhead Joint Public Hearing 10‐21‐2019
[EXTERNAL ]
META L. MAXWELL
PO Box 653
541‐731‐9161
metam@comcast.net
Eugene Mayor
Eugene City Manager
Eugene City Council
Exhibit 5
Page 238 of 290
RE: Testimony for MovingAhead Joint Public Hearing, Monday October 21, 2019 – 7:30 p.m. Harris Hall – sponsored by
the Eugene City Council and LTD Board of Directors
My name is Meta Maxwell. I am a resident of north Eugene. My family settled in the area in 1852. I was born here. I am
an avid walker of 20‐30 miles per week. I’ve biked the paths and have ridden the bus/EmEx system – especially to the U
of O where parking is problematic. I have a bachelors degree in business administration and a masters degree in
agricultural and resource economics, and have taught college courses in accounting and finance. I own commercial
property on Coburg Road and on W. 6th Avenue.
Last spring I was invited to a transportation open house at Safeway on Coburg Road and was told I’d receive a follow‐up
call to meet with planners at my property on Coburg Rd. to review MovingAhead plans. The call never came. Last week I
was sent notice of this meeting with attachments of over 200 pages which I have only had time to scan, but my initial
review leaves me with five major concerns I’d like to see addressed in a plan, and have time to review, before final
consideration is given:
1) While MovingAhead gives consideration to an increase in population of the area by approximately 34,000 over 10 years,
no consideration seems to be given to an aging of the population. The median age of 34 is skewed by a part‐time college
and university population, while my understanding is that retirees account for a large part of growth. This population I
believe is largely less healthy, out of shape, is less likely to bike and walk, and would have difficulty getting to bus
stations and using the system for appointments with doctors, shopping and entertainment.
2) I see no projections for an increase in single vehicle transportation that I’d expect to accompany an increase in
population despite people’s desires for fewer cars.
3) No consideration is given to climate change. Hotter summers, and colder winters will make it more difficult to get
to/from bus stations and less favorable for biking and walking. I see dedicated EmEx lanes lightly used while adjacent
lanes are crowded with cars; perhaps the EmEx lanes could be better utilized, help encourage conservation, and help
alleviate vehicle congestion by allowing their use by carpool vehicles and all electric vehicles.
4) In what I’ve been given so far, I see no specific plans for the MovingAhead corridors so we could evaluate planned
elements and associated costs.
5) No funding plan is given. A funding plan is needed in the context of other funding priorities in the community. As
taxpayers it is important that we evaluate a transportation plan in the context of other needs in the community
including, but not limited to, funding for expansion and improvements to bridges, repairs to sidewalks, enhanced cross‐
walks, addressing the needs of the homeless population, an increased need for emergency services, and improvements
to public buildings.
Remember, any increase in property taxes will increase housing costs. Already property taxes have become
burdensome to many property owners. The city has a long list of “wants and needs.” I suggest before any plan is
approved, the city in coordination with the county, LTD, and other stakeholders including community members,
engage in a comprehensive budget review through a “zero‐base” budgeting process.
Exhibit 5
Page 239 of 290
Using a zero‐base process, a detailed list of all current and potential expenditures would be evaluated by first listing
them, assigning costs, and prioritizing them. After going through this process, a line could be drawn through the list
at the point that is affordable with the existing funding base. My belief is that some of the areas to which money is
currently allocated, would be less important to the community than some of the areas that are not being adequately
funded. This could help shift funds to addressing the most important priorities for the community. It could focus
efforts to find less expensive ways to accomplish priorities. It could also help in evaluation of giving tax cuts to
builders ‐‐ they attract new people to the community who utilize public services but do not have to pay their fair
share of the property taxes that would normally be passed through to them; this means existing tax payers must pay
this increased tax burden. If the city, county, LTD and other stakeholders want to pursue items for which adequate
funding does not exist, the prioritization of projects would help to approach voters and other funding sources to
obtain the necessary money.
I’d be happy to work with you to re‐evaluate the region’s spending priorities using a “zero‐base” budgeting
approach. I think such an evaluation is long overdue.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly,
Meta Maxwell
CC The Register‐Guard
Eugene Weekly
Eugene Chamber of Commerce
Exhibit 5
Page 240 of 290
From: Jeffrey Robinson <jeff.g.robinson@gmail.com>

From: Jeffrey Robinson <jeff.g.robinson@gmail.com>
Message:
Full EmX implementation along the Coburg Road corridor makes no sense at all!
‐‐ It is nearly double the cost of any other corridor ‐ at $113,000,000.
‐‐ The transit time savings is essentially half that of Highway 99 or River Road
‐‐ Furthermore, the transit time savings is no better with the full‐EmX option over the Enhanced Corridor option
‐‐ The demographic of users along the wealthy Coburg Road corridor simply does not lend itself to transit use like the
other corridors under consideration.
‐‐ The number of condemnations/property acquisitions is double any of the other corridors.
Clearly, there is absolutely NO logic to deploying full EmX implementation along the Coburg Road corridor.
Thank you for your time and consideration!
Relevant Corridors:
Coburg Road
Contact Options:
Exhibit 5
Page 241 of 290
From: Peter Bolander <pwbolander@hotmail.com>

Subject: Comments Concerning Moving Ahead Enhanced and EMX Service on Eugene Streets
Hello:
I gave public comment at the joint City Council/LTD Board October 21st meeting but ran out of time to
complete my comments. Below is the remainder of my comment.
I was addressing the cost benefit of the various proposals and noted that using the information from Table 5‐
21 of the Alternative Analysis Report (AAR), which gives the expected increase ridership in 2035, and using just
the initial construction cost and assuming a 30 year time span that the River Road Enhanced corridor
alternative would cost $20 per new rider and the EMX alternative would cost $9 per new rider for each trip
over the next 30 years. They represent the second and sixth highest cost per new rider trip of the nine
alternatives. The table below shows the cost per ridership that I calculated for new and total ridership over a
30 year time span. The table does not address the Downtown/LCC Corridor since it was difficult
understanding what was happening with the enhanced alternative and the change in service really only
addresses from downtown to 20th Ave.
I roughly calculated that for the 24 million dollars to construct the River Road enhanced corridor that you
could double the amount of buses servicing River Road, provide express bus service and increase ridership
closer to the expected EMX levels for the next 20 to 25 years.
Based on the number of new riders, the cost per new and total rider trips, and the difference between the
enhanced and EMX option travel times savings, as all shown in the table below, I would recommend
considering another “package” as an alternative as follows:
1st priority: Martin Luther King Boulevard = Enhanced Corridor
2nd priority: Highway 99 = EMX Alternative
3rd priority: Downtown/LCC: install all pedestrian safety crossings
4rd priority: Coburg Road = increase bus service (frequency and express bus service) and install all pedestrian
safety crossings
5th priority: River Road = increase bus service (frequency and express bus service) and install all pedestrian
safety crossings
Thank you again for the time to comment
=Peter Bolander=
Cost per
Number of Cost per new Travel
Approximate every rider
current rider per trip Time
Alternative number of future per trip for
riders per for 30 years, Savings,
riders in 2035 (2) 30 years, $
day (1) $ (3, 4) minutes (1)
(3, 4)
Exhibit 5
Page 242 of 290
2120
Highway 99 ‐ (+370 riders so
1750 9.39 1.64 10
Enhanced +21% over no‐
build)
2640
Highway 99 ‐ (+890 riders so
1750 6.88 2.31 12
EMX +51% over no
build)
2330
River Road ‐ (+110 riders so
2220 19.93 0.94 5
Enhanced +5% over no
build)
3040
River Road ‐ (+820 riders so
2220 8.69 2.34 8
EMX +36% over no
build)
2906
Coburg – (+340 riders so
2566 11.01 1.28 5
build))
3426
Coburg ‐ (+860 riders so
2566 12.00 3.01 5
EMX +34% over no
build)
3064
MLK Jr. ‐ (+620 riders so
2444 3.09 0.63 2
build)
Notes
1 ‐ From Alternative Analysis Report for each corridor
2 – Assumed weekday ridership for each day of the year (365 days) from appropriate table in the Alternative
Analysis Report and the same ridership for every year
3 – Assumed 30 year time period
4 – Used initial construction cost only
Sent from Outlook
Exhibit 5
Page 243 of 290
From: Therese Lang <questions@movingahead.org>

Name:Therese Lang
Organization: Lang Public Relations
Email: therese@langpr.com
Phone:
Comments:
I live in the Coburg Road area. Frankly, the city should have planned better 25 years ago with regard to both Coburg
Road and River Road. The politicians who worry about elections are too gutless to make hard decisions and I blame
them (past and present) for the current situation. II would like to see EmX on both corridors, so I am in favor of Package
D. I think this would be the most useful to the residents of Eugene and it will help residents into the future. BEST
believes in only Enhanced Corridors and I think this will help but it doesn't really look to the future and this has been the
problem all along. No one is willing to take the brave position of big infrastructure improvements for the community.
BTW, not everyone in Eugene bikes, walks or takes the bus and this group (auto folks) have been ignored in this whole
process. Groups like BEST and the city are shoving alternative transportation options down our throats. I like taking the
bus but it is not always convenient and some of us are just not good on bikes. The business community is shameful in its
attempt to thwart these projects because they don't want to help pay for them. But I don't really want to continue to
pay for the business community to keep taking advantage of people like me who help support the infrastructure that
allows them to conduct their business. So I am in favor of Package D and I hope the LTD board and the city council
summon their courage and take bold steps in this project and support EmX.
Exhibit 5
Page 244 of 290
From: Leslie Mitchell <questions@movingahead.org>

Name:Leslie Mitchell
Organization:
Email: LMBus@comcast.net
Phone:
Comments:
I support the Enhanced Corridor package. I think the enhancements added by this option are sufficient with relatively
low impact and disruption and lower capital cost. I do not support EmX on River Road. I believe the estimates of
increase in ridership are overly optimistic and that the disruption to the corridor and River Road community will not be
worth the additional benefit. To increase ridership, I think more emphasis should be given to the feeder areas outside
the corridor. I am very concerned about the funding for any of the packages. I don't see any discussion of funding
sources for the alternatives. I do not support the current LTD model of taxing businesses along the bus routes by an
unelected board. I also think we have better, more immediate needs for Eugene area money‐‐public safety,
homelessness crisis. We can't count on federal funds.
My second choice is the No‐Build alternative.
Exhibit 5
Page 245 of 290

To: bernandjohn@icloud.com
Dear Bernadette Ross,
Comments can be submitted by emailing questions@movingahead.org or on the project's website at
http://www.movingahead.org/public‐hearing/#investcommentform. All comments received prior to November 4, 2019
at 5 pm will be provided to Eugene City Council and LTD's Board of Directors before they begin deliberations on selecting
a preferred investment package. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Andrew Martin
Development Planner
P: 541‐682‐6116
From: Bernadette Ross <bernandjohn@icloud.com>
From: Bernadette Ross <bernandjohn@icloud.com>
Message:
Where do I submit a comment regarding the proposed options for the River Road corridor?
Relevant Corridors:
River Road
Contact Options:
Exhibit 5
Page 246 of 290
From: Virginia Heer <questions@movingahead.org>

Name:Virginia Heer
Organization: SE Eugene citizen
Email: v.wildwood@gmail.com
Phone: 541‐729‐9016
Comments:
Most important to me is to maintain the #28 bus route. I want to be able to age in place, and neighborhood bus service
is crucial to this goal. Currently, I walk one‐third of a mile to catch the bus at E.Amazon & Dillard Road. That's fine.
Really. At the age of 68, I'm encouraged & comforted by the notion that I could give up my car and still maintain my
independence by utilizing LTD for grocery shopping at Albertson's and The Kiva, and for getting to the Library without
having to drive.
Additionally if our community leaders are aiming to reduce our city‐wide carbon footprint, widening the network of
buses is crucial. Cutting back on neighborhood bus service is wrong‐headed! Therefore I support the BEST‐endorsed
'Enhanced Corridor' approach to improving city‐wide bus service. Also, I think it's mandatory to conserve the heritage
trees lining Pearl & Oak Streets.
Thank you for reading this.
Sincerely, Virginia Heer 4444 Paddock Dr., Eugene, OR
Exhibit 5
Page 247 of 290
From: Christopher Logan <ctm_logan@yahoo.com>

From: Christopher Logan <ctm_logan@yahoo.com>
Message:
Greetings!
Having attended most or perhaps all of your events (to which I was invited), I find inescapable the conclusion that you
are using a faux democratic process to harvest a cleverly‐manufactured "will of the people" to support unlimited
"growth". The growth offered by Moving On ‐ at least in my River Road neighborhood ‐ is the growth of a cancer, rather
than the growth of a flower or of a baby. The future will be less convenient and uglier, and will entail long‐term
maintenance costs for taxpayers. We, the neighbors, will be stuck with more ECCO‐type constructions, which will soon
degrade into tenement projects and leave us with long‐term pollution and degradation of our environment. In the short
term, we will be subjected to noise, dust, pollution and traffic snarls, as for‐profit companies ruin our neighborhood.
I know a great many people who have commented negatively on the City's plans for River Road "development". Yet, in
the publications and later PR sessions, those comments have been deleted. You have given a handful of residents (those
willing to attend, unpaid, a long series of meetings) a series of forced choices, such as "bar‐bell or string of pearls" ‐ as
though fast food outlets and payday loan outfits are pearls we should be grasping for. The correct answer to your
questions is NONE OF THE ABOVE.
River Road does not have to BE a "corridor". It is a nice road, very serviceable, and does not need EmX or any other
construction along the main road. The idea of putting cluster homes all the way down the lanes, for a quarter of a mile,
is very disturbing to existing residents, who reside almost exclusively in "single‐family home" settings, even if they share
these homes or live in mother‐in‐law cottages behind such homes.
You are perhaps right to forge ahead with "corridors" to West 11th and Hwy. 99. Those routes are already blighted by
overwhelming commercial activity, and are routes used by the homeless, LTD's largest contingent of riders. But our
neighborhood does not (currently) draw people from outside the community to come and shop. And we like it that way!
Please do not turn River Road into West 11th.
We could use better bus service out here. But what we need are GOOD CONNECTORS. Everyone lives in the lanes ‐ very
few people live right on River Road. When it's raining, even a hundred‐yard walk poses a hardship to many people. We
used to get the 55 connector at the end of our lane (Dalton Drive), but now have to walk all the way to Emerald Park for
the (very infrequent) connector, and when we do, it may come late and then it drives all over the place before actually
connecting with the 51 or 52. So travel time to downtown is about an hour or more, and may involve getting soaked on
the way to town and on the way back. It would cost less to give us better connectors, than to deploy an EmX.
As for the "mandatory" infill prescribed by Envision Eugene, that can easily be achieved without "developing" River
Road. If the City would eliminate the heavy fees for building ADUs (mother‐in‐law cottages), and give a 5‐ or 10‐year tax
break on increased assessments, hundreds would use a window of opportunity like that to increase the value of their
property and provide a small income that would help with the mortgage. This is letting the people build their own city,
rather than making deals with out‐of‐state developers for massive, ugly projects. It gives work to all the carpenters and
electricians and plumbers and solar contractors, keeping the construction money in Eugene, in the hands of small
Exhibit 5
Page 248 of 290
contractors and laborers themselves. THAT would serve the citizens of Eugene, whereas the "Corridor" is set to enrich
everyone BUT the citizens.
Please examine your plans in light climate change. Every massive construction releases huge amounts of carbon,
cement being one of the guiltiest industries on the planet. Steel must be forged with coal, and fabricated with immense
amounts of electricity, which is not going to come from solar panels. Plastic is mostly oil, ditto for vinyl and linoleum
and many other building materials. The transportation of parts and materials from China, Mexico and other parts, and
the construction equipment used to build big projects also release a great deal of carbon.
Further, you should examine the effect of your plans on egalitarian democracy. If you are, in essence, serving "future
residents" who are not currently voting for you and paying your salaries, and also serving big developers who
concentrate wealth in a few hands, then you are actually working against the struggling citizens who already reside in
the River Road neighborhood. By seeking infill through ADUs, you would give financial and spiritual help to existing
residents, and tie the new residents to the old by means of the landlord relationship: they would end up at
neighborhood work parties, pot‐lucks and meetings, and themselves soon become River Road neighbors. By contrast,
apartment dwellers seldom achieve a sense of place, a feeling of "being at home" in a particular neighborhood, as their
tenancy is expected to be relatively short and they know no one in the area.
Though you may have achieved what you consider a mandate to throw huge amounts of construction at our
neighborhood, I'd like you to be aware that many of us out here are upset with this faux democracy and deeply resent
the City's plans to drop tons of cement and a fleet of dinosaur busses on River Road. Please reconsider the Corridor
option for River Road, and leave it as the nice, tree‐lined boulevard that it is.
Sincerely,
Christopher Logan
Relevant Corridors:
River Road
Contact Options:
Exhibit 5
Page 249 of 290
From: Tony Perez <tony.perez@tbsinc.org>

To: 'Andrew Martin'
Subject: RE: Fwd: Is there a defined impact to the area in front of our business on Coburg Rd
Hi Andrew. I appreciate the detail below and the link to the current design options. I will keep this on my radar and
reach out if there are any questions as the projects move along.
Regards,
Tony Perez
Sales Manager/Franchise Owner • tony.perez@tbsinc.org

Phone: 503-581-4890 • Fax: 503-315-5704 • 3045 Lancaster Dr NE, Salem, OR 97305
Bend, Beaverton, Corvallis, Eugene, Gresham, Hillsboro, Portland, Salem, Tualatin and Vancouver
NOTICE: The information contained in this electronic mail transmission is intended by The Battery Source Inc. for the use of the named individual or entity to which it is
addressed and may contain information that is privileged or otherwise confidential. It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any individual or entity other than the
named addressee (or a person authorized to deliver it to the named addressee) except as otherwise expressly permitted in this electronic mail transmission. If you have received
this electronic transmission in error, please delete it without copying or forwarding it, and notify the sender of the error.
From: Andrew Martin [mailto:Andrew.Martin@ltd.org]
To: tony.perez@tbsinc.org
Subject: RE: Fwd: Is there a defined impact to the area in front of our business on Coburg Rd
Dear Tony Perez,
Thanks for reaching out about potential impacts to your business. No decisions have been made about MovingAhead
yet. The project is still accepting comments in writing for those who were unable to attend a recent public hearing that
Eugene City Council and LTD’s Board of Directors held on October 21. All comments received before November 4, 2019
at 5 pm will be provided to Eugene City Council and LTD’s Board of Directors prior to deliberations. Eugene City Council
and LTD’s Board of Directors will make a decision about the project in early 2020.
Based on the address you provided, it appears as though the current designs show potential acquisition of property
under the Coburg Road Enhanced Corridor Alternative, but not in the EmX Alternative. The designs for each alternative
can be found in the project map book (http://www.movingahead.org/wp‐content/uploads/2018/09/23‐CH2M‐
2017.pdf). The designs are currently at a high level that will allow us to assess potential impacts. The City of Eugene and
LTD are committed to working with property owners to minimize impacts in future phases of the project, which will
include design refinements if one of the build alternatives is selected as the preferred alternative by City Council and
LTD’s Board of Directors.
If you have any questions or would like to meet with staff from the City of Eugene and LTD about the project, we are
happy to meet at your business to discuss the project with you. Please let me know if you need additional information.
Exhibit 5
Page 250 of 290
Thank you,
Andrew Martin
Development Planner
P: 541-682-6116
From: Tony Perez <tony.perez@tbsinc.org>
Subject: Is there a defined impact to the area in front of our business on Coburg Rd
We are looking to determine how the enhancements to the Coburg corridor will impact access to our
business at 420 Coburg rd. Has there been any discussions or decisions on how this project will affect
or change the area in front of our business?
Thanks
Tony Perez
Sales Manager/Franchise Owner • tony.perez@tbsinc.org

Phone: 503-581-4890 • Fax: 503-315-5704 • 3045 Lancaster Dr NE, Salem, OR 97305
Bend, Beaverton, Corvallis, Eugene, Gresham, Hillsboro, Portland, Salem, Tualatin and Vancouver
NOTICE: The information contained in this electronic mail transmission is intended by The Battery Source Inc. for the use of the named individual or
entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged or otherwise confidential. It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt
by, any individual or entity other than the named addressee (or a person authorized to deliver it to the named addressee) except as otherwise expressly
permitted in this electronic mail transmission. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please delete it without copying or forwarding it,
and notify the sender of the error.
Exhibit 5
Page 251 of 290
Andrew Martin
From: Jaye Cromwell <jaye.cromwell@jla.us.com>

Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2020 2:51 PM
To: Andrew Martin
Subject: [External Sender] FW: MovingAhead Website Hearings Comment
From: Alex Bauman <questions@movingahead.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 3, 2019 5:38 PM
Name:Alex Bauman
Organization:
Email: alexpbauman@gmail.com
Phone: 6128751951
Comments:
I support the EmX package because it would result in the greatest increase in transit service and reliability as well as the
largest improvement in conditions for pedestrians and cyclists. The City has a goal of substantial mode shift to transit,
biking, and walking, and the level of service provided by the the EmX package is the only package that will meet the goal.
Additionally, meeting the crisis of climate change requires that a substantial amount of car trips be shifted to transit, and
only the EmX package provides enough service to do so.
In terms of phasing or prioritization, the lines that are expected to generate the most additional ridership should be built
first. So according to the AA, that would be Hwy 99, then Coburg Rd, then River Road, then MLK, then LCC.
Exhibit 5
Page 252 of 290

Subject: FW: MovingAhead Plan for the Coburg Corridor et al
Sent: Monday, November 4, 2019 9:29 AM
Subject: FW: MovingAhead Plan for the Coburg Corridor et al
For your record ‐
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2019 10:12 PM
To: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager <MayorCouncilandCityManager@eugene‐or.gov>;
kate.reid@ltd.org; Caitlin.Vargas@ltd.org; Joshua.Skov@ltd.org; Emily.Secord@ltd.org; don.nordin@ltd.org;
carl.yeh@ltd.org; steven.yett@ltd.org
Subject: MovingAhead Plan for the Coburg Corridor et al
[EXTERNAL ]
META L. MAXWELL
PO Box 653
541-731-9161 metam@comcast.net
3 November 2019
VIA EMAIL:
Eugene City Council
Eugene City Manager
Exhibit 5
Page 253 of 290
RE: MovingAhead Plan for the Coburg Corridor et al
On October 28, 2019, I met with Andrew Martin, LTD Development Planner, and Christopher Henry, Eugene
Transportation Planning Engineer, to discuss the MovingAhead plans – specifically, the impact of the plans on
my property at 315 Coburg Road, and more generally, the overall MovingAhead plans for the region – the
underlying assumptions on which they are based, needs assessment, and available funding in light of
competing needs.
This letter will focus on the impact of the plans on my property. In a separate letter I will address my review of
the regional plans.
First, in preparation for our meeting, Andrew printed out the diagrams showing the portion of the Enhanced
Corridor Alternative and the EmX Alternative for the Coburg Road Corridor that would impact my property at
315 Coburg Rd. This was the first opportunity I’ve been given to see these plan. The plan shows Coburg Road
being widened in a manner that would necessitate the removal of the driveway to my property, elimination of
three or four parking spaces, removal of a monument sign that serves three tenants on the property, removal
of a bicycle rack, removal of an electrical box, and removal of a pole supporting a billboard sign extending over
the building which I lease to a fourth tenant. The property is at a higher elevation than the adjacent Albertson’s
property and does not have any alternative access. Additionally, the existing eleven parking spaces on the
property are barely sufficient to serve the tenants, and none can be eliminated.
When I pointed out the above deficits in the MovingAhead plan to Andrew and Chris, I was told that the
engineers preparing the plans DID NOT go out to the properties affected to ascertain that their plans and
drawings would accommodate the needs of property owners. I was told AFTER approval of the plans they’d be
reassessed and might be altered to accommodate individual property owners’ needs. I find both of these
assertions to be outrageous and unacceptable. That any plans would be proposed without visiting the sites
impacted is preposterous and cannot yield plans that are realistic, and perhaps not even feasible. The
approach that was taken to make plans impacting my property makes me suspect the plans for the rest of the
MovingAhead proposal may not be appropriate either. Not only are they unlikely to reflect what actually might
be done, but they make it impossible to build and apply a realistic budget for the proposal and, in my opinion,
make the MovingAhead plans impossible to approve. Needing to redesign what has been poorly planned will
be timely and expensive. Visiting the sites impacted and consulting with property owners before presenting the
plans for public comment could have avoided additional costs.
What is it exactly that the MovingAhead initiative wants approval of? It appears to be the right to do as they
please to expand and alter LTD routes, bike and walking paths. I strenuously object to the proposed
changes to my property.
I suggest that ALL PROPERTY OWNERS IMPACTED BY THE MOVINGAHEAD PLANS SHOULD BE
CONSULTED AND SHOWN THE PLANS FOR THEIR SEGMENTS BEFORE ANY APPROVALS ARE
GIVEN. Changes should be made as necessary and reviewed with property owners before the LTD Board or
Eugene City Council gives their endorsement to MovingAhead.
Exhibit 5
Page 254 of 290
Very truly,
Meta L. Maxwell
Exhibit 5
Page 255 of 290

Subject: FW: Public Comment on Moving Ahead
Attachments: Moving Ahead Letter.pdf
FYI ‐
From: Mark Johnson <Mark.Johnson@ltd.org>
[EXTERNAL ]
Please see attached letter to enter in to the public record on Moving ahead,.
Thanks.
Mark Johnson
Exhibit 5
Page 256 of 290
Dear City Council,
I appreciate all of your time and consideration on the options for Moving Ahead. I would like to offer my input,
not only as a citizen of Eugene but also a 38 year transit professional. I have heard all of the reasons and
thoughtful comments from BEST and other community members as to why they believe the enhanced corridor
option is the best approach to improving transportation in Eugene. I think that for the most part the enhanced
corridor option makes sense on some of the corridors as the final solution but on other corridors it does not
make the most sense. River Road is a corridor where the target should be full EmX not enhanced corridor. It is
an already congested corridor and making enhancements to the transit options will help move buses through
the corridor in the short term it will not help in the long term. They will get held up in traffic congestion as the
community grows as it is expected to do. So while the enhanced corridor option will present better pedestrian
and bike access it will not help transit in a meaningful way for the long term on River Road. Buses are the best
way to move the most people and they are the best way to get people out of their cars. Fast, frequent, and
reliable service is what gets people out of their cars and on to buses the enhanced corridor option on all
corridors does not set the community up for a successful transportation system in the future.
Mediocrity is an easy goal and that's what we are shooting for with the enhanced corridor option, it lacks
vision for the future and will not result in a world class transportation system. This decision will have an
impact on the community for the next 50 years. It is much better to aim high and reach for the best system
that we can have, it may be that we will have to settle for enhanced corridors because of lack of funding or
other factors but that should not be the end goal as growth and the related traffic consume our roadways.
BEST used Portland as an example of a city that settled on an enhanced corridor for their bus system. What
they failed to mention was that Portland has invested heavily in rail to the tune of billions of dollars, buses are
secondary to their transit system. There are at least 50 other cities in the North America that have decided
BRT systems are the long term solution for their public transportation systems. Many of them are modeled
after our EmX system
So while some in the community think that all of the questions about future growth need to be answered prior
to making infrastructure decisions that will alleviate traffic, increase bus ridership, and improve pedestrian and
bike access, I think we know enough to step out and aim for the best transportation system that we can. That
means EmX on some corridors, particularly River Road and leaving the option open on some others.
There have been a lot of cities that have missed the opportunity to build world class transportation systems
because they did not want to spend the money or they did not think they needed it. Seattle is a prime
example. They decided in the seventies not to invest in transit infrastructure including light rail. It was a
decision that set them back 35 years and they will never catch up.
This is an important decision, it is a legacy decision. The future of transportation in our region depends on the
outcome. Don't settle for average, be bold, be visionary and ensure that we have a world class transportation
system that will provide fast, reliable bus service as well as increased bike and pedestrian access for decades to
come.
Sincerely,
MarkJohrl n
Ward 5 ,
Exhibit 5
Page 257 of 290
From: Becky Riley <beckyriley2@gmail.com>

From: Becky Riley <beckyriley2@gmail.com>
Message:
I always imagined I would support EmX on River Road, for the transit service improvements as well as the streetscape
improvements to make the street more pleasant for walking and biking, and to attract positive neighborhood
development along the corridor. However, I am unhappy about the hundreds of large street trees slated to come down
to accommodate current EmX designs, and also to see that even optimistic modeling suggests the project will increase
greenhouse gas emissions. I also am unhappy about how long the planning and implementation will take. I find myself
hoping we can find a way to enhance the corridor much faster, possibly even using "tactical urbanism" (quick, temporary
changes) to widen and better protect the existing bike lanes, improve ped. crossings, slow traffic, improve bus stops and
streetscape generally, provide dedicated transit lanes and queue jumps where possible to achieve improved bus
service—and that we can also keep the mature trees and the huge ecological and streetscape value they provide.
Possibly these things could be achieved while an EmX planning process continues...but getting faster changes would be
very helpful and perhaps point a way forward for an EmX that can fit within the existing right‐of‐way and without
impacting so many existing trees. I do support removal and replanting of a few of the smaller trees that are failing to
thrive and that are not native and not providing valuable habitat. Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Relevant Corridors:
River Road
Contact Options:
Exhibit 5
Page 258 of 290

Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2019 9:18 PM
Subject: Detailed plans
How does a property owner get detailed plans showing impact of the plans on their individual properties?
Sent from my iPhone
Exhibit 5
Page 259 of 290
From: John F. Quilter <jquilter@peoplepc.com>

Sent: Friday, November 8, 2019 2:07 PM
From: John F. Quilter <jquilter@peoplepc.com>
Message:
I have read your Updated Investment Packages for Community Consideration and the five packages proposed. The
capital costs range from $148M to $335M. Some of this will likely be additional property owner bond funding with yet
another property tax increase. With a recent increase in my property taxes of 6% am very concerned with the
additional property taxes that I would incur with most of the packages with the exception of Enhanced Corridor.
Approaching 45% of Eugene residents are renters do not directly see a property tax bill so any survey you do that
includes them is going to be heavily distorted as they erroneously believe their landlord will pay this tax increase due to
additional bond debt on the property tax bill. So of course there is big support for EMx package at a $335M capital
cost. You flyer calls out a No Build Alternative that states "only currently planned investments would be implemented"
but there is no listing of what these are to provide a good comparison to what we are already slated to receive. So
enter my preference for no more than an Enhanced Corridor Package that still has substantial benefits but at a more
reasonable price tag. While there will be the argument that some of the capital costs will be paid by federal grants I am
unwilling to lean on the Feds and taxpayers all over the nation, to pay for our projects. The EMx routes require massive
reconstruction of the streets with lanes of 12 inches of highly CO2 producing concrete due to the excessive axle loadings
of the massive EMx vehicles. I understand that the recently completed W 11th EMx route is underutilized compared to
projections. With that I would advocate extreme caution on building another costly EMx route when there are less
expensive alternatives. So run standard 40 foot buses (or even smaller vehicles at lower occupancy times) on a more
frequent basis on routes where there is sufficient demand for bus travel.
Relevant Corridors:
Contact Options:
Exhibit 5
Page 260 of 290
Andrew Martin

Sent: Friday, November 8, 2019 10:51 PM
To: Andrew Martin
Cc: VARELA Larisa M; HENRY Chris C; Rob Zako; Brittany Quick-Warner; Tiffany Edwards
Subject: Re: [External Sender] MovingAhead Materials for Property Owner
Andrew,
Thank you for sending me a link to the detailed MovingAhead corridor plans. I suggest that you prominently
post a link to them on the MovingAhead website so all members of the public may have easy access to them.
Additionally, I suggest that you contact all businesses and property owners along the corridors, give them
copies of the plans affecting their businesses/properties, and work with them to address any concerns they might
have BEFORE a vote is called for by the LTD Board of Directors or the Eugene City Council. Of the other
property and business owners/managers I’ve contacted this week on Coburg Road and on River Road NONE
had been shown the detailed plans — everyone I’ve talked to would be adversely affected if the plans go
forward as drafted. I suspect property/business owners on the other corridors have not been shown the plans
either. They need to be brought into the planning loop and consulted BEFORE plans are put forward for a vote.
I look forward to learning more from you about the specific NEEDs being addressed by the plans for each
corridor, as well as the associated capital and operating costs. These are not covered sufficiently in the master
plans you gave me; from what I was given I am unable to understand or convey to others a sense of need or
feasibility of the MovingAhead plans.
Again, I appreciate your efforts to accommodate my requests for information about the MovingAhead plans. I
hope to get to a place where I can endorse revised plans that will ultimately put to a vote.
Sincerely,
Meta Maxwell
On Nov 7, 2019, at 3:34 PM, Andrew Martin <Andrew.Martin@ltd.org> wrote:
Hi All,
All of the project designs can be found at this link: http://www.movingahead.org/wp‐
content/uploads/2018/09/23‐CH2M‐2017.pdf
Let me know if you need any other information.
Thanks,
Andrew Martin
Development Planner
P: 541-682-6116
Exhibit 5
Page 261 of 290
From: VARELA Larisa M [mailto:LVarela@eugene‐or.gov]
Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2019 3:28 PM
Cc: metam@comcast.net; Andrew Martin <Andrew.Martin@ltd.org>
Subject: [External Sender] MovingAhead Materials for Property Owner
Hi Chris,
I wanted to let you know that Meta Maxwell stopped by the office today to look at the MovingAhead
maps. I’ve CCed her on this e‐mail for follow‐up. I let her know that we could provide her with copies of
the maps/pages. While she was here, Brian Crawford copied the pages she requested and gave them to
her. She expressed interest in receiving an electronic version of the maps if there is a way to get her the
large file (online cloud, thumb drive, etc). I’m assuming all of the corridor maps together are too big to
email. She’s primarily interested in Coburg Rd.
Thanks,
Larisa
Larisa Varela (she/her/hers)

Associate Transportation Planner
City of Eugene
Public Works, Engineering
Office Phone: (541)682-6887
Work Mobile: (541)501-0351
LVarela@eugene-or.gov
Exhibit 5
Page 262 of 290
From: Brandon <bvaughan198739@gmail.com>

From: Brandon <bvaughan198739@gmail.com>
Message:
Find a recent reading of your proposal I no see you're like eliminating routes and you're trying to hurt your tribe was
even more make them more make it a tighter squeeze on them and as writer I cannot support a company who would
alien aped passengers and eliminate routes from which those passenger of riders.
Rain I find it so ironic that moving ahead means telling other passengers you need to walk to the nearest bus stop
whether it's miles away or just a few blocks.
And you got people in wheelchairs and they're gonna have to put their wheelchairs make sure they're charged and go
blocks of down the road before they can even catch a bus I would say that a company who does that represents a
transportation issue.
I've been reading ltd and now I see why people leaving the bus system because ltd is willing to rip off the taxpayers to
do their own thing and you get paid V our tax dollars because it shows up every year our property tax as a public
transportation option.
Maybe that's the thing I don't like it when a company rips off taxpayers to get money you don't service have the areas it
says you do you don't do your job to show appreciation to the drivers so you rip off the people instead.
I don't know what else to say I mean I've tried to be nice or tried to point out things you guys could do differently but all
you say is will take it under advisement well if you say that about this statement I will continued to criticize your decision
making and once again prove that management doesn't know what they're talking about.
I have 2 questions and they're both for the planning committee and management of lane transit district.
How do you plan to reassure customers that are in a wheelchair bound and that ride your service because you're the
easiest transportation there is how do you show us customers that they're still have the bus service without having to go
blocks down the road?
My 2nd question is would again till attacks pair when they are pain for your service and your not providing it to some of
these hills of South Eugene and Lane County?
I just thought of my 3rd question what would happen if there is a petition circulating around link county calling for ltd to
open up its financial books about that new MX line down West 11th when you should have finished the one in
Springfield and ran in all the way out of 69th and main?
Relevant Corridors:
Contact Options:
Exhibit 5
Page 263 of 290
I would like a response, I would like to receive email update
Exhibit 5
Page 264 of 290
Andrew Martin
From: Brad Vaughn <brad@livevmg.com>

Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 9:39 AM
To: Andrew Martin
Cc: HENRY Chris C; MovingAheadProject
Subject: [External Sender] Re: Coburg Road Bus Line Expansion
Thank you for the info- i would be available for a call the week of 12/1.
What is capacity along those routes where you listed the ridership info?
Also is there an accounting of the 11th street corridor and the costs surrounding that site?
Brad Vaughn
650-347-3552
brad@livevmg.com
On Nov 21, 2019, at 9:46 AM, Andrew Martin <Andrew.Martin@ltd.org> wrote:
Hi Brad,
I was forwarded your email for a response. Chris Henry and I are project managers for MovingAhead.
This is a joint project between the City of Eugene and Lane Transit District. We’d be happy to set up a
meeting with you at your business or our offices. If a phone call is more convenient, we can arrange
that.
I believe the plans you reference are the conceptual designs that were released as part of the project
team conducting the work necessary to release the MovingAhead Alternatives Analysis. These drawings
areintended to be a high level, conceptual look at different alternatives across five corridors in Eugene.
The work we are doing now is intended to help set a high level vision for what transportation
investments are appropriate to implement along each corridor. The concept plans were not intended as
design drawings, but were intended to help analyze at the planning level what possible impacts may
occur under each alternative.
In direct response to your questions:
1. Ridership on routes on Coburg Road are:
Avg. Weekday
Route Boardings
12 1076
66 1362
67 1204
96 93
Exhibit 5
Page 265 of 290
2. Capital costs for the Enhanced Corridor Alternative are estimated to be $41 million. Capital costs
for the EmX Alternative are estimated to be $113 million. Details on these estimates can be
found in the Capital Cost Estimating Technical Report (http://www.movingahead.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/09/11-CH2M-2017.pdf).
3. Eminent domain is always a last resort option. LTD and the City of Eugene are bound by the
Uniform Relocation Act, which outlines the responsibilities of the agencies engaging in property
acquisition and the rights of property owners. Our current plans are conceptual and there are
many opportunities to work with property owners and community members to eliminate and
reduce impacts as we move from conceptual drawings to detailed designs.
4. The project team has provided many opportunities for input. At each step in the process, the
team has sent mailings to potentially impacted property owners, as well as all community
members along the corridors.
5. The link you reference is to the conceptual drawings on which our Alternatives Analysis was
based. These are not intended to be detailed design and are not construction drawings.
6. Eugene City Council and LTD’s Board of Directors will both make a decision about a package of
investments to make on all of the corridors in the MovingAhead study.
I would again like to offer to meet with you at your business or at our offices to talk through any
concerns you have and answer any questions you have about the work we have done and all of the
remaining steps in the process. There are many more places where the City of Eugene and LTD will
engage with the community and our decision makers before any construction could take place. The
project team is committed to working with the community and particularly with potentially impacted
property owners as we evaluate the MovingAhead corridors.
Thanks,
Andrew Martin Christopher C. Henry, PE

Lane Transit District Transportation Planning Engineer
Development Planner City of Eugene Public Works – Engineering
P: 541-682-6116 p 541.682.8472
Contact us at LTD.org w eugene‐or.gov/transportation
Exhibit 5
Page 266 of 290
Andrew Martin

To: 'YEH Jennifer K'; Carl Yeh
Cc: Tom Schwetz; Andrew Martin; Jennifer Zankowski
Subject: RE: [External Sender] Fwd: Coburg Road Bus Line Expansion
Jennifer,
We will handle on our end.
Thanks for forwarding.
A.J.
From: YEH Jennifer K [mailto:JYeh@eugene‐or.gov]
To: Carl Yeh <Carl.Yeh@ltd.org>; Aurora Jackson <Aurora.Jackson@ltd.org>
Subject: [External Sender] Fwd: Coburg Road Bus Line Expansion
Can someone answer this guys questions or let him know if the info is online?
I let him know I’d forward it on.

Thanks,
Jennifer
Jennifer Yeh
Eugene City Council
Ward 4
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 7:15:31 PM
To: YEH Jennifer K <JYeh@eugene‐or.gov>
Subject: Re: Coburg Road Bus Line Expansion
[EXTERNAL ⚠]
Jennifer- I’d also like more empirical data about the ridership stats? # of riders a day per route? % of the
community that rides the bus? How is the bus system funded? Would the new system lose less money than the
current? Who plans on making up that shortfall?
Have there been any studies on the impact of the 11th Street bus corridor? Again cost analysis versus property
lost? Litigation costs? Empirical Data not subjective if it is available.
All that would be helpful information during the decision making process.
Brad
Exhibit 5
Page 267 of 290
On Nov 12, 2019, at 2:28 PM, YEH Jennifer K <jyeh@eugene-or.gov> wrote:
Brad,
I will. If that falls through I’m happy to meet independently. I am usually more available on
Mondays and Wednesdays.
I’ll get back in touch early next week if the tour hasn’t been scheduled so we can meet.
Jennifer
Jennifer Yeh
Eugene City Council
Ward 4
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 9:27:44 AM
To: YEH Jennifer K <JYeh@eugene‐or.gov>
Subject: Re: Coburg Road Bus Line Expansion
[EXTERNAL ⚠]
Keep me posted on the property walk date and I will try to make it. Also let's keep the
communication open as this is the first we have heard of moving plans forward.
Brad Vaughn
650-347-3552
brad@livevmg.com
On Nov 12, 2019, at 9:20 AM, YEH Jennifer K <JYeh@eugene-or.gov> wrote:
Brad,
I’d love to meet with you. There is a group of Coburg property owners who is
going to get together and do a walking tour of potential impacts.
I would like to share that the plans are not final, they were created to give people
an idea of what could be done and have something to discuss.
When funding is identified, which it has not been and in most cases would need to
include grants, final designs would be made along with property owner
involvement.
Coburg is one of our major streets in Eugene with several bus routes that use it.
My bus route uses Coburg Rd along with at least 2 other routes.
Our Bus Rapid Transit system is not new here is Eugene and has been very
successful.
I think I can’t answer the rest of the questions because we aren’t approving
specific plans but rather the concept.
It might be easier to meet in person if you still have questions or concerns.
Thanks,
Exhibit 5
Page 268 of 290
Jennifer
Jennifer Yeh
Eugene City Council
Ward 4
To: YEH Jennifer K
Subject: Coburg Road Bus Line Expansion
[EXTERNAL ⚠]
Ms. Yeh- I am the owner of Coburg Station at 440 Coburg Road in Eugene. It has
recently come to my attention that there is an expansionary plan for the bus line
that would include the use of eminent domain to expand Coburg Road. I have a
few questions and would welcome a meeting or a phone call to better understand
Eugene’s plans and goals.
1. What is the current ridership statistics of the bus line serving Coburg Road? Is
it at capacity?
2. Who is funding the project and what are the anticipated costs? What is the
budget to purchase the land?
3. If Eminent Domain is used to recapture the corridor and parking is lost in our
mall will the parking restrictions with the city be amended? Currently- Every time
a tenant in our mall wants to do a project the city requires a parking structure to
ensure they have the required spaces per zoning?
4. Has notice been given to the many small business owners who live in Eugene
in my mall about this plan? Has there been any studies that this will be a positive
economic impact to the businesses on Coburg Road?
5. Are these the most up to date maps to share with our
tenants: http://www.movingahead.org/wp‐content/uploads/2018/09/23‐CH2M‐
2017.pdf
6. Who else are the key decision makers in this planning process as I would like
to connect.
I am obviously concerned for our mall and the current tenants and hundreds of
employees who work in the stores and restaurants. I am happy to loop them into
the conversation as well as they are just starting to ask questions as it seems there
may be an imminent vote.
I look forward to connecting,
Brad Vaughn
Coburg Station LLC
650-347-3552
brad@livevmg.com
Here are my tenants:
Club Pilates
Exhibit 5
Page 269 of 290
Vitality
InterDent
Complete
Nutrition
City Nails
Sleep Train
Barbers
Café 440
Perfect Eyebrow
Threading
Chipotle
AT&T
Exhibit 5
Page 270 of 290
Andrew Martin

Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 10:54 AM
To: Rob Zako
Cc: Tom Schwetz; Andrew Martin; Jennifer Zankowski
Subject: RE: [External Sender] WRITTEN RESPONSE REQUESTED: MovingAhead timeline and
decision process after selecting a locally preferred alternative?
Rob,
The answer to your question noted below is “No”. The governing bodies determine if there is a cart and what that cart
will contain.
Hope this helps to clarify any misunderstanding.
Best regards,
A.J.
Aurora Jackson
General Manager
(541) 682-6105
From: Rob Zako [mailto:robzako@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Rob Zako
To: Aurora Jackson <Aurora.Jackson@ltd.org>; Tom Schwetz <Tom.Schwetz@ltd.org>; Andrew Martin
<Andrew.Martin@ltd.org>
Cc: Mike Eyster <salsamike@comcast.net>; Jon Belcher <jbelcher@efn.org>; Marianne Nolte <marianne@best‐
oregon.org>; Tiffany Edwards <tiffanye@eugenechamber.com>; Meta Maxwell <metam@comcast.net>; David Davini
<davidd@ggroup.com>; Jenny Ulum <julum@ulum.com>; Amy Cubbage
<acubbage@cornerstonecommunityhousing.org>; Leah Rausch <lrausch.du@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [External Sender] WRITTEN RESPONSE REQUESTED: MovingAhead timeline and decision process after
selecting a locally preferred alternative?
Dear A.J.
Let’s start with a more basic question:
When the Eugene City Council and the LTD Board of Directors (joined by the Central Lane MPO?)
select a locally preferred alternative for each corridor, will that action satisfy federal requirements for an
environmental review?
I ask only because BEST has received conflicting verbal answers to this question.And I do not recall seeing
clarity on this point in the agenda item summary for the public hearing on October 21, 2019.
If, as you suggest, that there is a cart following the horse, all we are asking is for you to describe that cart, who
will decide on the details of the cart, and to provide assurances that the community will have future
opportunities to check out the cart before committing to hitching our wagon.
Exhibit 5
Page 271 of 290
Rob
On Nov 12, 2019, at 3:14 PM, Aurora Jackson <Aurora.Jackson@ltd.org> wrote:
Rob,
The information below is putting the cart before the horse and it assumes LTD will apply for a Small Starts grant. I have
not received any information from our Board that they are ready to start talking about funding. One major criticism was
about LTD seeking funding and then shoving a project down the community’s throat.
I will be more than happy to work with the City of Eugene to provide any information they need to make decisions
including graphics. I am also happy to provide the LTD Board of Directors any information they request I provide. If the
decision making is going to be based on funding and not around community input, I do see the need for a funding graph
but until now, all of the efforts have been focused on evaluating the investment packages based on community input.
Best regards,
A.J.
Aurora Jackson
General Manager
(541) 682-6105
<image004.png>
To: Aurora Jackson <Aurora.Jackson@ltd.org>; Tom Schwetz <Tom.Schwetz@ltd.org>; Andrew Martin
<Andrew.Martin@ltd.org>
Cc: Mike Eyster <salsamike@comcast.net>; Jon Belcher <jbelcher@efn.org>; Marianne Nolte <marianne@best‐
oregon.org>; Tiffany Edwards <tiffanye@eugenechamber.com>; Meta Maxwell <metam@comcast.net>; David Davini
<davidd@ggroup.com>; Jenny Ulum <julum@ulum.com>; Amy Cubbage
<acubbage@cornerstonecommunityhousing.org>; Leah Rausch <lrausch.du@gmail.com>
Dear A.J. … Tom & Andrew,
Thank you for your prompt response.
BEST is *NOT* suggesting that LTD or the City of Eugene would pursue funding for a project that has not yet
been approved by policymakers.
Rather we are asking for standard information in any major effort to explore a possible transportation project in
the future. Policymakers and the public alike benefit by a clear understanding of what comes next: a timeline of
where we are in the process, and what future decisions would likely need to be made by whom — of course
assuming that approvals are obtained along the way.
For example, should LTD and the City of Eugene gain approval that led to pursuing Small Starts funding, FTA
lays out the process for doing so. (See attached graphic.) They outline several key decisions:
 Complete environmental review process
Exhibit 5
Page 272 of 290
 Select LPA
 Adopt into fiscally-constrained RTP
 Gain commitments of all non-small Starts funding
 Complete sufficient design & engineering
 Apply for Small Starts funding
 Construction (including right-of-way acquisition)
Showing each of these steps on a timeline, who needs to decide what to complete each step, what opportunities
for public engagement are anticipated, and a rough estimate of timing would go a long way to providing the
kind of clarity and transparency the public seeks.
And if there are other sources of funding or processes, it would be helpful to see how these might align with or
differ from the Small Starts process.
As it is without a solid understanding of where we are in the process, the public is left to wonder and speculate.
City of Eugene officials are telling concerned business that MovingAhead and the selection of a LPA is just a
conceptual planning exercise. But in various settings, some staff have suggested the opposite, that November 4,
2019, was the last chance for the public to comment, and that FTA could accept the current alternatives analysis
as a sufficient level of environmental analysis, in which case perhaps after getting MPC to amend the RTP, the
following steps would lead to construction.
If our email of July 29, 2019, was not sufficiently clear in what we seek, we are happy to provide more clarity
on what at least BEST and as far as we can tell others in the community are looking for.
Regardless, we are looking for a formal memo (possibly with a graphic) to the Eugene City Council and LTD
Board of Directors providing them with this information prior to their being asked to select a LPA.
Thank you.
Rob
<image003.jpg>
On Nov 12, 2019, at 2:19 PM, Aurora Jackson <Aurora.Jackson@ltd.org> wrote:
Rob,
There are no scheduled upcoming meeting for MovingAhead on either LTD’s or the City of Eugene’s calendar.
After the last public meeting on MovingAhead, the project team has not confirmed any future public meetings or public
engagement opportunities. Once the project team develops a timeline, the information will be publicly available.
As for funding timeline, LTD does not seek funding for projects that have not already been adopted by the Board of
Directors. We have no pending funding applications. Should the Board approve a project from MovingAhead, we will
seek funding from federal or state grants.
I hope this written communication helps to clarify what we do and do not know.
Please feel free to reach out to me anytime. I am more than happy to provide you with as much information as I have to
assist you to understand where we are on any project.
Best regards,
Exhibit 5
Page 273 of 290
A.J.
Aurora Jackson
General Manager
(541) 682-6105
<image003.png>
To: Aurora Jackson <Aurora.Jackson@ltd.org>
Cc: Tom Schwetz <Tom.Schwetz@ltd.org>; Andrew Martin <Andrew.Martin@ltd.org>
Dear A.J. … and Tom & Andrew,
Thank you.
BEST looks forward to seeing in writing more clarity on the timeline and decision process following the
selection of LPAs for each corridor.
Note that we understand it is not always possible to see the future precisely and that such a timeline likely
involves uncertainty about timing and even processes depending on what funding sources are pursued. For
example, we have some understanding of what would be required to tap into Small Starts funding, but
appreciate that other sources of funding could require other steps.
Our request is not for you to be clairvoyant, but merely to articulate what you do — and do not — know at this
time, highlighting especially key decision points and opportunities for future public engagement, The timeline
graphic we suggested back in July could be one effective way to communicate this information not only tot he
public but also to MovingAhead policymaker.
Best wishes,
Rob
On Nov 12, 2019, at 10:38 AM, Aurora Jackson <Aurora.Jackson@ltd.org> wrote:
Hello Rob,
I will look into your request and have a respond by next week.
Best regards,
A.J.
Aurora Jackson
General Manager
(541) 682-6105
<image002.png>
Exhibit 5
Page 274 of 290
On Nov 12, 2019, at 9:43 AM, Rob Zako <rob@best-oregon.org> wrote:
*** WRITTEN RESPONSE REQUESTED — PLEASE FORWARD TO APPROPRIATE STAFF ***
Dear LTD Board President Carl … and FYI to other LTD board members and to Eugene Mayor
Lucy Vinis,
Carl, thank you for your years of service to our community.
As LTD's leading representative of the public, I am writing in the hopes that you can obtain an
answer to a question that BEST and members of the public have been asking but to date have
not yet received a satisfactory answer:
After selecting a locally preferred alternative (LPA) for each of the MovingAhead
corridors, what is the timeline of major decisions and actions still needing to happen
before the launch of new service?
In particular, is selecting a LPA a final decision after which construction is pretty much
approved? Or rather will there be an additional round of more detailed analysis looking
at potential impacts, including financial costs for construction and operations, and
impacts on individual property and business owners? For example, will there be a
follow up environmental impact statement or environmental assessment (as was
conducted for West Eugene EmX)?
In May, BEST asked this question. (Attached see our May 13, 2018, memo of questions —
question #6.)
In July, BEST suggested staff answer the question by producing a complete graphic timeline
showing the steps leading from today to the launch of new service. (Below see our July 29,
2019, follow up email to staff — suggestion #1.)
But we have yet to receive a response in writing. And different staff have offered conflicting
answers verbally, preventing us from relying on any of these as solid assurances.
To be clear, what BEST and the broader public seek is assurance. River Road neighbors might be
more willing to provisionally support EmX if they were confident they would be learning more
and could change course based on more detailed information. In September at a meeting of the
River Road Community Organization when I suggested the idea of provisional support, a staff
person suggested that the Alternatives Analysis might already be sufficient and there might not
be a need for further environmental review prior to construction. Alas, at this time many do not
feel they have enough information to support EmX with finality.
Exhibit 5
Page 275 of 290
And in your own Ferry Street Bridge neighborhood, some property and business owners are
organizing now to stop the City of Eugene and LTD from making any decisions on MovingAhead
until every single owner along Coburg Road is contacted. They have uncovered detailed plans
that show sections of existing properties slated to be condemned for construction, even for the
less ambitious Enhanced Corridor alternative. (See detailed plans developed by CH2M Hill in
2017.) At least one staff person suggested that November 4, 2019, was their last chance to
object to potential taking of their properties, causing them to understandably panic that the
City of Eugene and LTD might proceed with construction before they even knew what was
planned to happen to them.
Please forward our request to appropriate LTD and/or City of Eugene staff.
We look forward to a response in writing — not only to us but also to the public and especially
to the Eugene City Council and LTD Board of Directors before any more work sessions are
scheduled. BEST does not see how it would be responsible for policymakers to select a LPA
before understanding the consequences of that decision.
And, as always, BEST is available to discuss in person if that might be useful to you.
Best wishes,
Rob
<BEST - LTD MovingAhead 2019-05-13.pdf>
Exhibit 5
Page 276 of 290
Andrew Martin

Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2019 10:54 AM
To: Tom Schwetz; Jennifer Zankowski; Andrew Martin
Subject: Fwd: Forward Email response to AJ - Aurora Jackson, General Manager, LTD - Re:
[External Sender] Community Input to MovingAhead plans
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

Date: November 13, 2019 at 7:13:22 PM PST
Cc: Carl Yeh <Carl.Yeh@ltd.org>, Brittany Quick-Warner <brittanyw@eugenechamber.com>,
"lvinis@eugene-or.gov" <lvinis@eugene-or.gov>, Rob Zako <rob@best-oregon.org>, Tiffany
Edwards <tiffanye@eugenechamber.com>, "jphammer@nu-world.com" <jphammer@nu-
world.com>, Rick Oakes <rickpegoakes@gmail.com>, "melissa.gillian@usbank.com"
<melissa.gillian@usbank.com>, "pfarrington@cdcmgmtcorp.com"
<pfarrington@cdcmgmtcorp.com>, YEH Jennifer K <JYeh@eugene-or.gov>, Mike Clark
<mclark@eugene-or.gov>, David Davini <DavidD@giustina.com>, Jenny Ulum
<jenny@obie.com>, RICHARD ABRAHAM <ricabr@comcast.net>, "bvaughn@gmail.com"
<bvaughn@gmail.com>, Hytrek's Jewelers <hytreksjewelers@gmail.com>, Todd Torrey
<TJTorrey@comcast.net>, Mike Hoppe <michael.hoppe@cellularmekanix.com>, Timothy
Hoppe <timothy.hoppe@cellularmekanix.com>
Subject: Forward Email response to AJ - Aurora Jackson, General Manager, LTD - Re:
[External Sender] Community Input to MovingAhead plans
I appreciate your willingness to meet with me and the other stakeholders. I will contact the others
to discuss a date that will work for all to meet. I know some will be out of town until week after
next, but I will be back to you with workable dates as soon as possible- it may not be until after
Thanksgiving. Please confirm that no votes or progress on the MovingAhead plans will occur in
the interim.
Thank you!
Meta Maxwell
Owner, 315 Coburg Road (Tenants: Hytrek’s Jewelers, Cellular Mekanix, Oregon Man Clinics,
Torrey Meadows Outdoor Advertising)
541-731-9161
On Nov 13, 2019, at 12:06 PM, Aurora Jackson <Aurora.Jackson@ltd.org>

wrote:
Exhibit 5
Page 277 of 290
Ms. Maxwell.
I appreciate you reaching out to me and I welcome the opportunity to meet with
you and the stakeholders you identified below.
Please provide a list of dates and times that work best for you and other
stakeholders. If you would please indicate a preferred location also.
I look forward to your continued communication as we coordinate a meeting.
Best regards,
A.J.
Aurora Jackson
General Manager
(541) 682-6105
-----Original Message-----
From: Meta Maxwell [mailto:metam@comcast.net]
Cc: Carl Yeh <Carl.Yeh@ltd.org>; Brittany Quick-Warner
<brittanyw@eugenechamber.com>; lvinis@eugene-or.gov; Rob Zako
<rob@best-oregon.org>; Tiffany Edwards <tiffanye@eugenechamber.com>;
jphammer@nu-world.com; Rick Oakes <rickpegoakes@gmail.com>;
melissa.gillian@usbank.com; pfarrington@cdcmgmtcorp.com; YEH Jennifer K
<JYeh@eugene-or.gov>; Mike Clark <mclark@eugene-or.gov>; David Davini
<DavidD@giustina.com>; Jenny Ulum <jenny@obie.com>; RICHARD
ABRAHAM <ricabr@comcast.net>; bvaughn@gmail.com
Subject: [External Sender] Community Input to MovingAhead plans
Ms. Jackson-
The community has been lied to by omissions and by representations made about
the MovingAhead plans in letters, publications and presentations (including those
hosted by the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce and at the October Open
House prior to the joint LTD Board/Eugene City Council meeting). Until last
Exhibit 5
Page 278 of 290
week, the detailed 2017 plans for each of the five corridors were not shared nor
was there any correlation drawn between them and each of the so called
“Enhanced Corridors” or EmX Corridors (higher level plans) that the
MovingAhead advocates are trying to push forward for votes. A sampling of
property owners on Coburg Road, River Road and other corridors confirms that
all of the plans have been put forth without their consultation or input.
The sham open houses and community input sessions that have been held without
specifically inviting owners of businesses and commercial and residential
properties that will be most effected, and without revealing all the planning that
has been done, were clearly designed to minimize or eliminate input into the
MovingAhead process. The process needs to come to a halt until the stakeholders
most affected are consulted, needs are clearly understood, plans are redrafted to
address concerns, and both construction and operational budgets are deemed
feasible.
I and other stakeholders would welcome the opportunity to participate in a

transparent fully informed planning process before anything goes forward.
Meta Maxwell
Owner - 315 Coburg Rd. (Tenants: Hytrek’s Jewelers, Cellular Mekanix, Oregon
Man Clinics, Torrey-Meadows Outdoor Advertising) Sent from my iPhone
Exhibit 5
Page 279 of 290
From: HENRY Chris C

To: Andrew Martin
Subject: [External Sender] FW: Questions about MovingAhead
Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 9:35:48 AM
Attachments: BEST_Logo_Horizontal-188x75.png
FYI
From: RODRIGUES Matt J <MRodrigues@eugene-or.gov>

Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 4:59 PM
To: HENRY Chris C <CHenry@eugene-or.gov>; INERFELD Rob <RInerfeld@eugene-or.gov>; HARDING
Terri L <THarding@eugene-or.gov>; WILLER Jenifer M <JWiller@eugene-or.gov>
Subject: FW: Questions about MovingAhead
An FYI on Rob’s email below and a few thoughts.
Folks, I recommend we sit down with our LTD project team to discuss how to clarify and simplify our
messaging for MovingAhead. I am hearing growing concern from the Mayor and Council members,
the Chamber of Commerce, BEST and community members that they do not fully understand the
differences between options or the implications of decisions. I beleive we can change the narrative if
we continue to identify and answer core questions that help clarify the process, alternatives and
next steps.
Thank you,
Matt Rodrigues, P.E.
Public Works Director AIC
City of Eugene
Ph: 541-682-6877
mrodrigues@eugene-or.gov
From: Rob Zako <robzako@gmail.com> On Behalf Of Rob Zako

Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 11:14 AM
To: MEDARY Sarah J <SMedary@eugene-or.gov>
Cc: RODRIGUES Matt J <MRodrigues@eugene-or.gov>
Subject: Questions about MovingAhead
[EXTERNAL ⚠]
Dear Sarah … and FYI to Matt,
Thank you for the reminder.
After five years of engagement, BEST finds the MovingAhead effort to be frustrating, as we still have
a lot of questions — not for lack of asking and trying to get answers. Indeed, we recently asked LTD's
board president to get for us the answer to just one question: What comes next after policymakers
Exhibit 5
Page 280 of 290
select locally preferred alternatives, i.e., what future phases, decisions or milestones? In other
words, what is the effect of that decision? Alas, LTD staff was unable or unwilling to provide a
satisfactory answer, suggesting that they won’t know until policymakers selected LPAs.
So BEST is now contacting Eugene elected officials to see if they might get answers to questions that
not only we have but they do as well.
Thus the mayor or perhaps a city councilor might soon ask you as city manager to seek answers
to some key outstanding questions.
Best wishes,
Rob
P.S. FYI not as an official list but just to give you a sense of what questions remain, here are
questions that BEST still has:
1. Is selecting a locally preferred alternative a “final" decision that directs staff to pursue
funding, undertake more detailed design and engineering, and proceed to construction? Or is
it an “interim” decision that gives direction to study that alternative in more detail, solicit
more public feedback, and gain further direction from decision-makers before fully
committing to construction?
2. Alternatively, what is a rough timeline of decisions and milestones that would need to occur
after selecting a locally preferred alternative all the way to construction?
3. What are potential federal sources of funding for capital costs for EmX? for Enhanced
Corridor?
4. What are expected requirements for local match and what are potential funding sources?
Could these result in cuts in transit service or increases in local taxes?
5. Would it be feasible to construct a locally preferred alternative incrementally, for example,
using local funding to make pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements sooner and later
count such investments as local match funding? Or would it be necessary to line up all local
match funding and gain approval for a federal grant before any local funding could be spent?
6. What are potential sources of funding for increases in operating costs? Could these include
cuts in transit service or increases in local taxes?
7. In general, the estimated operating costs for EmX alternatives are significantly higher than for
Enhance Corridor. Is this because EmX is assumed to operate every 10 minutes? In light of
Transit Tomorrow, is that a realistic assumption?
8. If EmX were assumed to operate only every 15 minutes, how would that change estimated
operating costs? How would that change estimated changes in ridership and other metrics?
9. Is there an expectation of what Enhanced Corridor is, for example, a report or plan analogous
to the City of Portland’s Enhanced Transit Corridor Plan? As it is, Enhanced Corridor sounds
like such a flexible combination of technologies that it could be almost anything at all.
10. In particular, is Enhanced Corridor a kind of bus rapid transit? If so, would it be eligible for
federal funding for bus rapid transit, in particular, Small Starts funding?
11. In particular, is Enhanced Corridor a kind of EmX Lite, i.e., using EmX vehicles and stations but
perhaps running in mixed transit, as EmX currently does through Glenwood?
Exhibit 5
Page 281 of 290
12. In particular, is Enhanced Corridor an “open” form of bus rapid transit, i.e., able to
interoperate with regular buses and stations / stops without requiring a transfer between
Enhanced Corridor and regular bus segments?
13. Given that EmX is a “closed” form of bus rapid transit, would it be necessary for people to
transfer between non-EmX and EmX segments? For example, if EmX were built along River
Road but nowhere else, would someone traveling from north Santa Clara to LCC need to take
three buses: a regular bus to Santa Clara Station, an EmX bus to Eugene Station, and then a
regular bus to LCC Station?
14. Does the Alternatives Analysis estimate the expected increase in motor vehicle travel time in
the same way it estimates the expected decrease in transit travel time?
15. Detailed plans developed by CH2M Hill show even some of the Enhanced Corridor
alternatives, for example, along Coburg Road, taking parts of existing properties and
businesses. Are such plans firm or at this time just conceptual for the purposes of estimating?
--
Rob Zako
Executive Director
541-343-5201 (home office)
541-606-0931 (mobile)
rob@best-oregon.org
www.best-oregon.org
Building a successful community by bringing people together to promote transportation options, safe streets,

and walkable neighborhoods.
Exhibit 5
Page 282 of 290
From: Carleen Reilly

To: Andrew Martin
Subject: [External Sender] MovingAhead comment
Date: Friday, December 13, 2019 7:03:28 PM
Attachments: MovingAhead comment.docx
Hello, Andrew:
Attached is my comment for the MovingAhead project to be forwarded to Eugene Councilors

and LTD Board. Thank you for your assistance with this.
Carleen
Exhibit 5
Page 283 of 290
To: Eugene City Councilors and Lane Transit District Board
From: Carleen Reilly, 395 Marion Ln, Eugene, OR 97404
RE: MovingAhead
Date: December 13, 2019
Currently, our LTD ridership is good, but congestion on River Road, particularly at Beltline has been
increasing over the decade, with rising complaint in equal measure from drivers. This is only one of a
multitude of reasons why EmX should be chosen for the River Road Corridor.
River Road is the aorta of River Road and Santa Clara neighborhoods, according to Santa Claran Jerry
Finigan. And the bloodstream must be kept flowing to keep our neighborhoods alive. Neighbors have
testified at meetings, attended open houses, filled out surveys, and lobbied Rep. Peter DeFazio’s office for
a decade or more to bring bus rapid transit to River Road. More people are moving to Eugene and our
neighborhoods, and how will we move them? Transportation must be designed to be efficient as people’s
time is valuable to them.
As congestion across the metropolitan area increases, vehicles are slowed. That includes buses on
standard routes. Over time, bus routes have taken longer to complete, except with EmX. With dedicated
lanes for EmX, one could expect their bus to reliably arrive at a scheduled time, no matter how much
congestion is around them.
For current bus riders in wheel chairs, they are sometimes left behind on River Road because wheelchair
bays are filled. Because EmX would make more frequent trips along River Road, it would provide more
wheelchair bays per hour than regular bus service or Enhanced service. Also, the level boarding on EmX
for wheelchairs, strollers, walkers, and people less able bodied is a very attractive feature that reduces
stress when boarding and exiting.
This congestion creates greater auto emissions, from vehicles and buses, as they are stuck in traffic or
going slowly. EmX would not make congestion go away, but dedicated bus lanes would allow EmX to
continue traveling during congestion, making the trip more efficient.
The environment and carbon footprint is very important to River Roaders. Although it has been said that
Enhanced service would emit fewer emissions, that is because the buses would run less frequently. EmX
would greatly offset the increased emissions by taking more cars off the road. As LTD transitions to more
fuel efficient buses in the next 10 years, such as hybrid and electric, we can expect this to be a radical
reduction in emissions. As stated earlier, with a dedicated lane, EmX makes more efficient use of fuel
than Enhanced service.
Having just returned from a trip to Spain and New York City, I became painfully aware of our need to get
people out of cars and into public transit. Providing efficient, reliable buses—like EmX—is one incentive
for people to choose to leave their cars at home. Another incentive is the pain of being caught in
congestion, and it is believed that congestion will get worse before it gets better.
As the River Road corridor builds out to provide sufficient housing for an increasing population in 10
years or more, we will need an adequate transportation system to take people to school, work, grocery
shopping, doctor visits, meetings in town, visits to friends, and excursions to lectures and ball games. The
River Road Corridor will also fill out with commercial services to take care of some of our basic needs,
and people from other neighborhoods will want to access our distinct eateries and amenities like parks
along the Willamette River. And bus service will bring customers to business’s doors, helping them
thrive. Our corridor has an adequate right of way to accommodate bus rapid transit and dedicated lanes. It
Exhibit 5
Page 284 of 290
is our obligation to build the service we need for that future population. Enhanced would provide half-
way measures that would later need to be expanded. Let’s do it right in the first place.
Many other attributes of EmX are:

• the provision of business access lanes,
• the safety that bus lanes provide to buffer bike lanes and sidewalks,
• increased safety measures installed at intersections,
• replacement of underground utilities—a long-term investment, providing many maintenance-free
years,
• the connection of neighborhoods on east and west that are currently bisected by River Road as it is
currently unsafe to cross,
• the installation of more sidewalks,
• the additional attention to the needs of people of varying capabilities and underrepresented
populations,
• the provision of active transportation which keeps people healthier,
• the improvement of traffic flow with a well-engineered corridor,
• the planting of more appropriate street trees than we have now,
• the increased beauty of the street, improvement of pride and overall care of the neighborhoods,
• the installation of artwork tailored to the neighborhood.
Exhibit 5
Page 285 of 290
Andrew Martin
From: Michele O'Leary <micheleoleary@comcast.net>

Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2019 3:07 PM
To: Andrew Martin
Subject: [External Sender] Moving Ahead feedback
Hi Andrew:
I am writing to you today about the Moving Ahead project, specifically regarding the River Road Corridor. I am a retired
ODOT Transportation Safety professional, with over 10 years of experience in the traffic safety field. I am currently the
main transportation contact on the River Road‐Santa Clara Neighborhood plan. I also sit on the City of Eugene’s Active
Transportation Committee and am a former board member of BEST. That being said, the feedback below comes from
me and does not represent a policy or position of any of the organizations I am or have been affiliated with.
The River Road‐Santa Clara Neighborhood plan (NP) has actively involved neighbors in how we want the area to look for
the next decade. There has been a large amount of feedback received from our neighbors, particularly from the
standpoint of transportation. The great majority of it has been in favor of an EMX line for River Road and Santa Clara.
I offer the following points in support of Moving Ahead proposing an EMX line to our neighborhood:
 The neighborhood supports EMX;
 The is a large opportunity for mode shift in the area:
o The area is currently car‐centric and EMX would offer an attractive alternative to driving;
o mode shift would help the city meet climate recovery goals;
 There is a current corridor study of the area;
 The areas’ average income is one of the lower in the city;
 The window of opportunity will close and no consideration for EMX will be taken up again for at least a decade;
 The area just north of Beltline (in the Santa Clara neighborhood) is home to multiple independent and assisted
living complexes as well as nursing homes and medical offices. Ambulatory residents as well as employees could
use EMX instead of driving.
I fully support an EMX line for the River Rd and Santa Clara neighborhood and not enhanced bus service. EMX is easy,
more frequent and convenient. There is support from the community. River Rd and Santa Clara seem to always end up
getting a “cheaper” option than other, higher socioeconomic areas of the city. EMX is simply the right thing to do for our
neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Michele O’Leary
1943 Debra Sue Ct.
Eugene, OR 97404
micheleoleary@comcast.net
Exhibit 5
Page 286 of 290
Andrew Martin
From: Paula Thonney <thonneyp@lanecc.edu>

Sent: Friday, January 3, 2020 3:22 PM
To: Andrew Martin
Subject: [External Sender] Re: FW: 30th to LCC corridor
Hi Andrew,
I'd love to have the following included as appropriate for the public comment:
I teach at LCC and live in South Eugene. I teach math literacy in the context of climate change. In response the
global climate situation, I encourage my students to look at their lifestyle and carbon footprints. When I dream
of a carbon neutral world, a bike trail connecting south Eugene to LCC is part of that dream. I have biked to
campus before but it is not a pleasant ride. My students and I would be far more likely to bike to campus if the
bike trail through Amazon park continued and connected next to 30th or else somehow through the golf course,
sheltered from car & truck traffic.
Of course it would be great also to have a way for bikes to travel to downtown Springfield as well!
Thank you for your work on this. There is a group of faculty and staff at LCC who strongly support movement
towards a carbon free future. Please let us know how we can support your work. Thank you!
Paula
Paula Thonney
Mathematics Instructor
Lane Community College
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:34 AM Andrew Martin <Andrew.Martin@ltd.org> wrote:
Hi Paula,
We are in the midst of closing out our comment period with a final report of comments. We will include the
email you sent us. If you wish to send us an additional comment to be included in the report, please do so by
January 7th or we may not be able to include it before the report is complete. We have also added you to our
email list so that you will receive notifications about the project in the future.
Thank you,
Andrew Martin
1
Exhibit 5
Page 287 of 290
Development Planner
P: 541-682-6116
From: questions@movingahead.org [mailto:questions@movingahead.org]

Sent: Friday, December 13, 2019 9:40 AM
To: Adrienne DeDona
Subject: FW: 30th to LCC corridor
A new comment came in today from Moving Ahead. I think the project team will want to see it. Thanks!
From: Paula Thonney <thonneyp@lanecc.edu>

Sent: Friday, December 13, 2019 9:31 AM
Subject: 30th to LCC corridor
Hello,
I just became aware that your group may be working on creating an enhanced corridor for bikes on 30th to
LCC.
I teach at LCC and would like to support this endeavor in any way possible. I'm a math instructor but also a
member of the Lane Climate Action Team.
I realize you have been working on this for some time and it's not a quick process. Anyway I would like to be
in the loop or to be able to express support.
Thank you!
Exhibit 5
Page 288 of 290
Paula
Paula Thonney
Mathematics Instructor
Lane Community College
Exhibit 5
Page 289 of 290
Andrew Martin
From: Adrienne DeDona <adrienne@jla.us.com>

Sent: Wednesday, January 8, 2020 2:23 PM
To: Andrew Martin; Lynda Wannamaker (lynda@wannamaker-consulting.com)
Cc: MovingAheadProject
Subject: [External Sender] FW: MovingAhead Website Contact Form Message
Hi Andrew and Lynda,
Here is a new comment we received. I don't think it requires a response other than our generic one. Let me know if you
have any questions or concerns.
Thanks,
Adrienne
From: questions@movingahead.org <questions@movingahead.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2020 1:35 PM
To: Adrienne DeDona <adrienne@jla.us.com>
Subject: FW: MovingAhead Website Contact Form Message
New Moving Ahead email for the project team.
Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2020 10:16 PM
Message:
I think I would like to support what you want to support on which option is the best for the community. And for the
future of the cities. We all care about the safety of the transportation system the community and the safety of the
streets of the cities of the Eugene and Springfield community and you all. I hope you can make smart choices for the
community and to make the transportation system safer and to make the buses more safer for everyone. We can't wait
to see what which option you picked and what design of platforms of the stations and which draft design for the future
of the routes. I thank you for the hard work you put in a lot of effort for these routes and I would like to thank the
community for there effort and for helping the city and moving ahead and ltd and transit tomorrow to make this project
move forward. We hope that you had a great new year and have a great day. Thank you for your help. I hope you have a
great day.
Relevant Corridors:
Contact Options:
Exhibit 5
Page 290 of 290
COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 5352
A RESOLUTION APPROVING OF MOVINGAHEAD LOCALLY

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES
PASSED: 6:1
REJECTED:
OPPOSED: CLARK
ABSENT: EVANS
CONSIDERED: March 14, 2022
Exhibit 6
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit 6
Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 7
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit 7
Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 8
Page 1 of 5
Exhibit 8
Page 2 of 5
Exhibit 8
Page 3 of 5
Exhibit 8
Page 4 of 5
Exhibit 8
Page 5 of 5
Exhibit 9
Page 1 of 3
Exhibit 9
Page 2 of 3
Exhibit 9
Page 3 of 3

From:
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2022 6:53 PM
To: SYRETT Claire M <CSyrett@eugene‐or.gov>
Subject: petition scam
[EXTERNAL ⚠]
a gentleman was just at my door to sign a petition to

have river road remain 2 lanes, w/no change for the
xbuses. i signed the petition as i would rather not have
these buses on river road, & was given a sheet after i
signed that had 'more of an explanation' on this
matter. when i read this paper, i was disheartened to
see that in large letters, b4 any info about the bus
issues, was the title RECALL CLAIRE SYRETT. i believe
1
Exhibit 10
Page 1 of 2
whoever is petitioning for this is using false info to
garner signatures. since i have no info on this individual
petitioner, i'm just letting you know that people are
petitioning w/o letting signers know this stands for
TWO issues. i would have thought this thru had i been
told that there were actually TWO issues, your recall &
the bus line. this is the last time i will ever take
anyone's word on signing a petition. i should have been
apprised of BOTH issues, & this makes me very angry.
i'm sure you are already aware of this, but i'm just so
angry for being duped that i can't let this slide. if you
need a copy of this i can scan it in & send it to you.
i don't want big buses on river road, but i do not want

to be duped for my signature either. now that i think of
it, he wasn't wearing a mask either. now i'm really
angry!
Exhibit 10
Page 2 of 2
8/17/22, 5:37 PM Oregon Secretary Of State
Welcome to ORESTAR
August 17, 2022 (Version: v4.2.14

)
Home Business Voting & Elections State Archives Audits
Public Search ▴
Transaction Search Results
New Search Export To Excel Format Prev

Next
Committees/Filers by
Name *in-kind expenditure
Committees/Filers by Search Criteria : Filer/Committee ID = 22183, **out-of-state contributor
Election
Results : 35 records found for the above search
Committees by
criteria
Measure/Petition

Tran
Tran
Filer/Committee
Sub Type
Campaign Finance
Transactions ID Date Status Contributor/Payee Amount
Miscellaneous Cash
Campaign Finance 4220504
07/23/2022 Original Recall Claire Syrett Contributions $100 Cash Contribution $100.00
Certificates
and under
Candidate Filings
4205773 Eugene Business
Local Measures 07/18/2022 Original Recall Claire Syrett Cash Contribution $4,750.00
Alliance
My Vote Miscellaneous Cash
4212491
Sign in and under
4201818
07/13/2022 Original Recall Claire Syrett Lube It USA Cash Contribution $168.56
Elections Home 4201824
07/13/2022 Original Recall Claire Syrett Graffiti Alley Cash Contribution $134.83
Elections History
4201833
Publications & Forms 07/13/2022 Original Recall Claire Syrett 1280 Oak, LLC Cash Contribution $500.00
4201835
07/12/2022 Original Recall Claire Syrett Kelly's Home Center Cash Contribution $500.00
Miscellaneous Cash
4207748
and under
Miscellaneous Cash
4203232
and under
4197329
07/06/2022 Original Recall Claire Syrett Meta Maxwell In-Kind Contribution $10.00
4197332
4198245 Specialty Crate and

07/06/2022 Original Recall Claire Syrett Cash Contribution $250.00
Pallet Inc.
4196206
07/05/2022 Original Recall Claire Syrett Emerald Building Cash Contribution $500.00
4196214
07/05/2022 Original Recall Claire Syrett C & E Rentals Cash Contribution $500.00
4196215
4196216
4194672
06/30/2022 Original Recall Claire Syrett Brent Laing Cash Contribution $500.00
Miscellaneous Cash
4197193
and under
https://secure.sos.state.or.us/orestar/cneSearch.do?cneSearchButtonName=search&cneSearchFilerCommitteeId=22183&OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=IU… 1/2
Exhibit 11
Page 1 of 2
8/17/22, 5:37 PM Oregon Secretary Of State
419719206/27/2022 Original Recall Claire Syrett Miscellaneous Cash Cash Contribution $100.00
Contributions $100
and under
4184373
06/17/2022 Original Recall Claire Syrett J.P. Hammer Cash Contribution $500.00
4182639
06/16/2022 Original Recall Claire Syrett Mark Osterloh In-Kind Contribution $7.39
4182638
4179590
4174448
4174450
4172819
06/01/2022 Original Recall Claire Syrett J.P. Hammer Cash Contribution $500.00
4170682
Miscellaneous In-Kind
4174128
05/27/2022 Original Recall Claire Syrett Contributions $100 In-Kind Contribution $28.40
and under
4151698
4151699
4151702
4151703
4151707
Miscellaneous Cash
4156602
and under
Miscellaneous Cash
4154538
and under
New Search Export To Excel Format Prev
Next
Privacy Policy
Accessibility Policy
Oregon Veterans
Oregon.gov
Elections Division
• 255 Capitol St NE, Ste 501 • Salem OR 97310
Phone: 503-986-1518 or 1-866-673-VOTE • Fax: 503-373-7414 •

orestar-support.sos@sos.oregon.gov
https://secure.sos.state.or.us/orestar/cneSearch.do?cneSearchButtonName=search&cneSearchFilerCommitteeId=22183&OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=IU… 2/2
Exhibit 11
Page 2 of 2

Claire Syrett For City Council V Meta Maxwell Et Al

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Claire Syrett For City Council V Meta Maxwell Et Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/18/2022 4:18 PM

4 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON

5 FOR THE COUNTY OF LANE

6 CLAIRE SYRETT FOR EUGENE CITY Case No.

23 pray for relief as follows:

4 is a candidate committee registered with the Oregon Elections Division. The

5 Candidate Committee’s current purpose is supporting Claire Syrett as a candidate

6 for City Councilor, City of Eugene, Ward 7.

8 Plaintiff Claire Syrett (“Councilor Syrett”) is an individual residing in Lane

19 Defendant Mark Osterloh (“Defendant Osterloh”) is an individual residing in

20 Lane County, Oregon.

22 Defendant Gerald Morton (“Defendant Morton”) is an individual residing in

23 Lane County, Oregon.

25 Defendant Recall Claire Syrett (the “Recall Committee”) is an Oregon

4 Alternative Transaction Filer.

6 Defendant Eugene Business Alliance (“Defendant EBA”) is an Oregon mutual

7 benefit nonprofit corporation and an unregistered Oregon campaign committee.

19 Councilor Syrett was first elected as City of Eugene Councilor, Ward 7 in

22 contents of which are incorporated herein by reference.

24 Councilor Syrett was reelected as City of Eugene Councilor, Ward 7 in 2016.

2 the contents of which are incorporated herein by reference.

4 Councilor Syrett was reelected as City of Eugene Councilor, Ward 7 in 2020.

8 are incorporated herein by reference.

20 achieving critically important policy goals.

21 a. Housing for unsheltered

22 o Secured initial $1 million for the recently opened Navigation Center,

23 which will provide unsheltered people with connections to housing.

24 o Led efforts to establish pioneering Rest Stop program to provide

25 temporary shelter to those living on the streets.

26 o Supported expansion of shelter options through Safe Sleep sites.

2 Yah Terrace, a low-income senior apartment complex serving hundreds

3 of residents, as well as city investments in Square One Villages

5 b. Support for public safety

6 o Supported adoption of the Community Safety Initiative payroll tax to

7 provide more 911 dispatchers, police officers, community safety officers

8 as well as non-police interventions to improve response times and

19 disabilities, who are low income or who choose not to drive.

20 o Championed alternative transportation options as an important

21 strategy for reducing carbon emissions as part of City of Eugene’s

22 Climate Action Plan.

23 d. Addressing climate change

25 buildings, to include banning fossil fuel infrastructure in new

2 sprawling out, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

3 o Secured $10,000 for planting hundreds of additional street trees in

5 e. Protecting working families

7 paving the way for statewide adoption.

8 o Helped ensure passage of phase one renter protection, which reduces

20 Councilor Syrett’s current term as a Eugene City Councilor runs until

22 Candidate Committee intends to support her candidacy.

25 MovingAhead is a partnership between the City of Eugene, Lane Transit

26 District (“LTD”), Oregon Department of Transportation, Lane County, and others

6 Plan and Frequent Transit Network.

8 MovingAhead is focused on better connecting people to jobs, schools,

19 association meetings, participating in community events such as Parties in the

21 Board of Directors. Some of this outreach is summarized in the MovingAhead

22 Outreach Summary, attached as Exhibit 4, the contents of which are incorporated

2 Based on community feedback, MovingAhead is exploring options along five

4 Coburg Road, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard.

6 MovingAhead released its Alternatives Analysis Report including an

8 various References and Supporting Documents (together the “Report”), including

11 Report and summarized and responded to all of the comments received in a

12 Comment-Response Report dated May 1, 2021, a copy which is attached as

13 Exhibit 5 and the contents of which are incorporated herein.