pages: TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2007-03-28 | 3 | that live on Otis Drive. She noted that Councilmember DeHaan's suggestion for putting the 63 back on Shoreline was correct, where the residents of apartments and condominiums could use it. She added that the Hall of Justice was also on the route, which would serve those who have lost their drivers licenses. 6A. SHUTTLE SERVICES AND OPERATIONS ANALYSIS - FINAL PRESENTATION. Staff Bergman presented the staff report, and detailed the background of this item, including comments made at the last meeting. The consultant has tried to address those concerns in the report, and requested feedback. One point was that the incremental costs of increasing AC Transit service was in the context of Alameda Landing, and the cost of serving the new site may not be comparable to the introduction of a new route. Staff conducted discussions with AC Transit to analyze potential modifications of their existing routes to serve that site. AC Transit indicated that in terms of Alameda Landing, that there is enough time available in the existing Line 19 schedule to reroute it through the site at no additional cost. The 63 could be routed through the Alameda Landing site, although that would require an additional bus. He described and demonstrated the proposed changes. John Atkinson noted that he was in continual discussion with AC Transit, and received an email from one of their planners regarding the 63 and the 19 lines. He noted that the end goal was to have the public transit provider of Alameda County be the primary transit provider at Alameda Landing. He noted that it may be a two-pronged approach, where shuttles come in the initial phases, since such as service could be implemented quickly, and they may not meet the minimium ridership thresholds AC Transit would need. He noted that they could get ridership built up, and then look at AC Transit as a solution for the long-term. Public Comment. There were no speakers. Close public comment. Chair Knox White complimented staff on its report, and noted that it answered most of their concerns. He noted that they could add the 19 line at no additional cost, and while it was not a short-term cost, it would not answer the short-term run. Staff Bergman described the cost factors. Chair Knox White noted that he would feel comfortable forwarding this to City Council, but wanted to clarify any issues with respect to costs that were not reflective of what was proposed according to the staff report. Commissioner Krueger noted that he was studying the costs on page 14, and requested further clarification on the map. He noted that the costs did not work out, and that there seemed to be a Page 3 of 11 | TransportationCommission/2007-03-28.pdf |