pages: TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf, 2
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2007-03-28 | 2 | requested that the Transportation Commission minutes for the last two years be available to the public. Chair Knox White noted that the minutes that have been approved are now available on the City's website. Commissioner Krueger believed that hard copies of the minutes should also be available. Chair Knox White agreed with the Commissioners that the minutes should be available to the public, and apologized to Ms. Risley for her request not being fulfilled. Liz Cleves noted that at the City Council meeting of March 6, 2007, Councilmember Doug DeHaan addressed an AC Transit engineer and said, "At this point, Shoreline is strictly for the express, the W to San Francisco. At any point in time did we have bus stop service going down there, and I believe we did, and why would that be the area that you would most likely have a higher likelihood of ridership? Because that's where you placed the W Knowing that this route is known for high usage and high ridership when you go that route." She noted that AC Transit engineer was unable to answer the question, and turned the question over to an AC Transit transportation planner, who stated, "There used to be a bus that used to go down Shoreline. I believe in 2003, December, due to service cuts, I believe it was sent down Otis Drive to save running time. Currently, the bus schedule is about 50 minutes of running time, and I guess, in our business, the more running time, the more, the higher the cost. Taking it down Grand to Shoreline would add running time to the route." Ms. Cleves noted that Mr. DeHaan then asked, "What is more important, running time or ridership?" The AC Transit planner replied, "I know there was limited resource for the City of Alameda." Mr. DeHaan interjected, "The reason I ask, and I think anyone in the audience understands, that Shoreline itself is adjacent to the heavier density of residents, and that's why you route the W there. I just can't see that run time becomes more important than ridership, but I'm a taxpayer, and I would like to preferably have the 63 bus line on Shoreline." The AC Transit planner responded, "We could cut a different part of the route, and reroute it via Shoreline, if that would be something that the City would want to do." She noted that in the past, she understood that the City must do what AC Transit wants, but noted that AC Transit had made it very clear that they would do what the City wants. She noted that as a taxpayer, she would prefer that the 63 line be back on Shoreline, where there was greater density and no schools. She believed that route would be more profitable for AC Transit, and safer for the children, the crossing guards and other pedestrians in Alameda. She noted that Councilmember DeHaan's question about the relative importance of running time versus ridership was very important, and further asked whether running time or the safety and peace of mind of Alameda taxpayers was more important. Diane Voss noted that she had also attended the March 6, 2007, City Council meeting, and concurred with Ms. Cleves' statements. She noted that the issue of AC Transit Line 63 on Otis Drive has been a source of disagreement since 2003, taking considerable time of Public Works, City Council, the Transportation Commission and the Transportation Technical Team. She believed it had pitted neighbor against neighbor, angered many parents of Lum School students, caused problems for the crossing guards, been a taxpayer burden, and harassed many residents Page 2 of 11 | TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf |