Visit the pages on this site using the buttons below or click "Get Started" to move through the information in order.
= Page includes questions or opportunities for comment.
Para información en español
Si usted desea materiales en español, contáctenos en questions@movingahead.org o 541-682-6100.
Interpretación en español estará disponible en la jornada de puertas abiertas.
How we got here
MovingAhead began in 2015 as a partnership between the City of Eugene, Lane Transit District (LTD), regional agencies, and the Eugene-Springfield community. Its purpose is to determine how to improve transportation on some of our most important streets.
MovingAhead is about more than just transit. It’s about getting us where we need to go, whether we ride the bus, bike, drive, use mobility devices, or walk.
Based on previous community feedback, the MovingAhead team focused on five key corridors and identified costs and benefits of transportation investments for each:
- Highway 99
- River Road
- 30th Avenue/LCC
- Coburg Road
- Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard
What we’ve heard so far
Over summer and fall of 2018, the City and LTD heard from the community. Key themes emerged:
- Strong support for transit, with a preference for EmX and Enhanced Corridor options (more on those later) compared to No-Build options.
- Important criteria for most who responded:
- Improvements and safety for people who walk and bike
- Level of transit ridership
- Effect on travel time
- Effect on operating costs - Most strongly supported: adding EmX along River Road
- Smaller difference in support among options for the 30th Avenue to LCC and MLK, Jr. Blvd corridors
The Eugene City Council and LTD Board of Directors will select a package of transit, walking, and biking investments to fund and build on the five corridors over the next 10 years. The selected investment package will become a powerful tool for carrying out local and regional land use, transportation, and community plans.
MovingAhead Goals and Objectives
Goal 1 Improve multimodal transit corridor service +
Improve transit travel time and reliability, minimize transfers, increase ridership, and improve access and safety for people walking, bicycling, and using mobility devices.
Goal 2 Meet current and future transit demand in a cost-effective and sustainable manner +
Control costs while increasing transit capacity to meet demand. Leverage funding opportunities that provide a maximum return on investment. Minimize impacts to the environment.
Goal 3 Support economic development, revitalization, and land use opportunities for the corridor +
Support and coordinate with other planned development and transportation projects and provide high-capacity transit that is consistent with the community vision. Minimize impacts to businesses and industry and improve transit so as to provide benefits to vehicles, freight, and emergency services.
Feedback from open houses, listening sessions, an online open house, and other public comments helped form the options you’ll see here.
Corridors
Early community input identified five key corridors for future investment:
- River Road
- Highway 99
- Coburg Road
- MLK, Jr. Blvd.
- 30th Avenue to LCC
Previous public feedback and community conversations helped define three options for four of the corridors — and two options for MLK, Jr. Boulevard. The three options are defined below.
Options
No-Build Alternative
No new investments at this time
The City and LTD would only make changes that are already planned as part of other projects. No additional investments would be made as a part of the MovingAhead project. This is helpful to measure the benefits, costs, and impacts of the other options.
Enhanced Corridor Alternative
Lower investment option
Enhanced Corridor is a new concept for Eugene and Springfield. It's intended to improve safety, access, and transit service without major capital investments.
Key features
- Typically a bus every 15 minutes
- Consolidating the number of bus stops
- Transit signal priority and/or queue jumps at intersections
- Enhancing some bus stops
- Improving or building pedestrian crossings at intersections
- Filling in gaps in the sidewalk network
- Adding accessible sidewalk ramps at intersections
- Improving or building bicycle facilities
- Streetscape investments such as lighting and landscaping
EmX Alternative
Higher investment option
EmX is LTD’s current Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service. This option would develop additional BRT service and connect with the existing EmX system. EmX currently operates between the Gateway area and west Eugene, serving downtown Springfield, downtown Eugene, and the University of Oregon.
Key features include:
- Typically a bus every 10 minutes
- Bus-only lanes in key locations
- Higher capacity multi-door buses
- Enhanced stations with raised platforms and other amenities
- Off-board fare collection to allow boarding through all doors
- Transit signal priority and/or queue jumps at intersections
- Longer distances between stops
- More frequent and redesigned service
- Greater investment in pedestrian, bicycle, sidewalk, and streetscape improvements than with the Enhanced Corridor alternative
Bicycle Facilities
Upgrades could include separated, protected bike lanes and routing bike lanes behind transit stations.
Upgraded and Enhanced Crossings
New crossings would generally be located at mid-block locations (away from intersections) and could include accessible ramps, pedestrian islands, striping, or flashing beacons.
Transit Signal Priority and Queue Jumps
Transit Signal priority or queue jumps reduce transit delay at signals and improve the efficiency of the transit system by allowing buses to proceed through signals ahead of other vehicles.
Bus-only and Business Access & Transit (BAT) Lanes
Bus-only lanes would be reserved for buses. They could be located in the middle of the street or next to the curb.
Business Access & Transit (BAT) lanes are reserved for buses and turning vehicles. These lanes allow access to businesses, improve bus reliability, reduce travel time, and remove buses and turning vehicles from the general traffic lanes.
 | Enhanced Corridor PackageLow capital cost, no annual operating cost increase, and relatively low impact on property, trees, and parking. Relatively low rating for safety and access investments for people who walk and bike, only a small ridership increase, and low travel time savings. |
 | Package AMinimal investment focused on Highway 99 (Enhanced Corridor) and River Road (EmX) . Focuses service in areas with higher levels of low-income and minority populations and has the lowest impact on property, trees, and parking. Rated less consistent with local plans and has lower community support since only two corridors receive investments. |
 | Package BModerate investment with build options on four of the five corridors. The only EmX Alternative is on River Road. All corridors include community preferred alternatives, except the 30th Avenue to LCC corridor which is designated as No-Build. Provides moderate ratings on most criteria and rates well for investments focused in corridors with higher levels of low-income and minority populations. |
 | Package CRelatively high investment with build alternatives on all five corridors. All corridors include community preferred alternatives. Rated the second highest for consistency with local plans and policies. |
 | EmX PackageHighest level of investment options for each corridor. Rates highest for safety and access improvements for people who walk and ride bikes, travel time savings, and ridership. High capital and operating costs and a high level of impacts to property, trees, and parking. Rated highest for consistency with local plans and policies due to investment in enhancements that contribute to improved safety and ridership. |
Package Comparison
| Enhanced Corridor Package | Package A | Package B | Package C | EmX Package | |
| Cost | |||||
| ★ Systemwide Annual Operating Cost (Change from No-Build) | -$0.1M | $1.9M | $3.0M | $2.5M | $8.2M |
| Capital Cost | $148M | $119M | $181M | $202M | $335M |
| Transit Performance | |||||
| ★ In-Vehicle Transit Travel Time Improvement | 21% | 13% | 22% | 23% | 25% |
| ★ Systemwide Annual Ridership Increase (Compared to No-Build) | 389,000 | 385,000 | 576,000 | 521,000 | 1,327,000 |
| Bicycling & Walking | |||||
| ★ New Bike/Ped Access and Safety Improvements (1-5 rating) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Development Impacts | |||||
| Support Development and Redevelopment (1-5 rating) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Number of Medium and Large Trees Impacted | 103 | 146 | 164 | 222 | 432 |
| Number / Acreage of Acquisitions | 115/4.1 | 84/3.5 | 137/4.6 | 150/5 | 177/8.4 |
| Potential Business Relocations (Mitigation measures would be used to avoid or reduce displacements) | 4 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 8 |
| Parking Impacts: On-Street/Off-street (Number of spaces) | 188 | 81 | 148 | 217 | 375 |
| Community Vision | |||||
| ★ Percent of Investment in Corridors with Higher Level of Disadvantaged Population | 56% | 98% | 76% | 68% | 50% |
| Support from the Public (1-5 rating) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Consistency with Local Plans and Policies (1-5 rating) |
|
|
|
|
|
★ Starred criteria have been identified as a top priority based on public feedback.
Shading shows performance relative to other packages:
Supports | Does not Support |
Click "Next" below or use the tabs to answer questions about the packages.
Features
Low capital cost
No annual operating cost increase
Relatively low impact on property, trees, and parking
Relatively low rating for safety and access for people who walk and bike
Only a small ridership increase
Low travel-time savings
| Enhanced Corridor Package | |
| Cost | |
| ★ Systemwide Annual Operating Cost (Change from No-Build) | -$0.1M |
| Capital Cost | $148M |
| Transit Performance | |
| ★ In-Vehicle Transit Travel Time Improvement | 21% |
| ★ Systemwide Annual Ridership Increase (Compared to No-Build) | 389,000 |
| Bicycling & Walking | |
| ★ New Bike/Ped Access and Safety Improvements (1-5 rating) |
|
| Development Impacts | |
| Support Development and Redevelopment (1-5 rating) |
|
| Number of Medium and Large Trees Impacted | 103 |
| Number / Acreage of Acquisitions | 115/4.1 |
| Potential Business Relocations (Mitigation measures would be used to avoid or reduce displacements) | 4 |
| Parking Impacts: On-Street/Off-street (Number of spaces) | 188 |
| Community Vision | |
| ★ Percent of Investment in Corridors with Higher Level of Disadvantaged Population | 56% |
| Support from the Public (1-5 rating) |
|
| Consistency with Local Plans and Policies (1-5 rating) |
|
★ Starred criteria have been identified as a top priority based on public feedback.
Shading shows performance relative to other packages:
Supports | Does not Support |
Questions
Features
Minimal investment focused on Highway 99 (Enhanced Corridor) and River Road (EmX)
Service focused in areas with larger low-income and minority populations
Lowest impact on property, trees, and parking
Less consistent with local plans and lower community support, since only two corridors receive investments
| Package A | |
| Cost | |
| ★ Systemwide Annual Operating Cost (Change from No-Build) | $1.9M |
| Capital Cost | $119M |
| Transit Performance | |
| ★ In-Vehicle Transit Travel Time Improvement | 13% |
| ★ Systemwide Annual Ridership Increase (Compared to No-Build) | 385,000 |
| Bicycling & Walking | |
| ★ New Bike/Ped Access and Safety Improvements (1-5 rating) |
|
| Development Impacts | |
| Support Development and Redevelopment (1-5 rating) |
|
| Number of Medium and Large Trees Impacted | 146 |
| Number / Acreage of Acquisitions | 84/3.5 |
| Potential Business Relocations (Mitigation measures would be used to avoid or reduce displacements) | 6 |
| Parking Impacts: On-Street/Off-street (Number of spaces) | 81 |
| Community Vision | |
| ★ Percent of Investment in Corridors with Higher Level of Disadvantaged Population | 98% |
| Support from the Public (1-5 rating) |
|
| Consistency with Local Plans and Policies (1-5 rating) |
|
★ Starred criteria have been identified as a top priority based on public feedback.
Shading shows performance relative to other packages:
Supports | Does not Support |
Questions
Features
Moderate investment, with build options on four of the five corridors
EmX on River Road only
Community-preferred options on all corridors, except 30th Avenue to LCC (designated as No-Build)
Moderate ratings on most criteria
Rates well for investment in areas with larger low-income and minority populations
| Package B | |
| Cost | |
| ★ Systemwide Annual Operating Cost (Change from No-Build) | $3.0M |
| Capital Cost | $181M |
| Transit Performance | |
| ★ In-Vehicle Transit Travel Time Improvement | 22% |
| ★ Systemwide Annual Ridership Increase (Compared to No-Build) | 576,000 |
| Bicycling & Walking | |
| ★ New Bike/Ped Access and Safety Improvements (1-5 rating) |
|
| Development Impacts | |
| Support Development and Redevelopment (1-5 rating) |
|
| Number of Medium and Large Trees Impacted | 164 |
| Number / Acreage of Acquisitions | 137/4.6 |
| Potential Business Relocations (Mitigation measures would be used to avoid or reduce displacements) | 6 |
| Parking Impacts: On-Street/Off-street (Number of spaces) | 148 |
| Community Vision | |
| ★ Percent of Investment in Corridors with Higher Level of Disadvantaged Population | 76% |
| Support from the Public (1-5 rating) |
|
| Consistency with Local Plans and Policies (1-5 rating) |
|
★ Starred criteria have been identified as a top priority based on public feedback.
Shading shows performance relative to other packages:
Supports | Does not Support |
Questions
Features
Relatively high investment, with build options on all five corridors
Second highest for consistency with local plans and policies
| Package C | |
| Cost | |
| ★ Systemwide Annual Operating Cost (Change from No-Build) | $2.5M |
| Capital Cost | $202M |
| Transit Performance | |
| ★ In-Vehicle Transit Travel Time Improvement | 23% |
| ★ Systemwide Annual Ridership Increase (Compared to No-Build) | 521,000 |
| Bicycling & Walking | |
| ★ New Bike/Ped Access and Safety Improvements (1-5 rating) |
|
| Development Impacts | |
| Support Development and Redevelopment (1-5 rating) |
|
| Number of Medium and Large Trees Impacted | 222 |
| Number / Acreage of Acquisitions | 150/5 |
| Potential Business Relocations (Mitigation measures would be used to avoid or reduce displacements) | 6 |
| Parking Impacts: On-Street/Off-street (Number of spaces) | 217 |
| Community Vision | |
| ★ Percent of Investment in Corridors with Higher Level of Disadvantaged Population | 68% |
| Support from the Public (1-5 rating) |
|
| Consistency with Local Plans and Policies (1-5 rating) |
|
★ Starred criteria have been identified as a top priority based on public feedback.
Shading shows performance relative to other packages:
Supports | Does not Support |
Questions
Features
Highest level of investment for each corridor
Rates highest for safety and access for people who walk and ride bikes
Rates highest for travel-time savings and ridership
High capital and operating costs
High level of impacts to property, trees, and parking
Highest consistency with local plans and policies
| EmX Package | |
| Cost | |
| ★ Systemwide Annual Operating Cost (Change from No-Build) | $8.2M |
| Capital Cost | $335M |
| Transit Performance | |
| ★ In-Vehicle Transit Travel Time Improvement | 25% |
| ★ Systemwide Annual Ridership Increase (Compared to No-Build) | 1,327,000 |
| Bicycling & Walking | |
| ★ New Bike/Ped Access and Safety Improvements (1-5 rating) |
|
| Development Impacts | |
| Support Development and Redevelopment (1-5 rating) |
|
| Number of Medium and Large Trees Impacted | 432 |
| Number / Acreage of Acquisitions | 177/8.4 |
| Potential Business Relocations (Mitigation measures would be used to avoid or reduce displacements) | 8 |
| Parking Impacts: On-Street/Off-street (Number of spaces) | 375 |
| Community Vision | |
| ★ Percent of Investment in Corridors with Higher Level of Disadvantaged Population | 50% |
| Support from the Public (1-5 rating) |
|
| Consistency with Local Plans and Policies (1-5 rating) |
|
★ Starred criteria have been identified as a top priority based on public feedback.
Shading shows performance relative to other packages:
Supports | Does not Support |
Questions
Stay involved
Visit the project website (MovingAhead.org) for the latest project information, to sign up for email updates, to learn about upcoming events, and to submit comments.
MovingAhead Timeline
Final Questions
(All questions are optional.)
Demographic Information (Optional)
These questions are optional, but will help the City and LTD know whether this survey has reached a representative cross-section of the community.
