pages: TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2007-04-25 | 4 | Commissioner Krueger inquired how much additional fare box revenue the new routing would bring in. Mr. Diest Lorgion estimated it would be about 25 extra riders a day at an average fare of 70 cents, which would not pay for itself. He noted that the current route has about 1800 passengers a day, and that an extra 25 passengers per day was a small addition. Staff Khan noted that 25 riders per day would add approximately $6800 annually at 70 cents average fare, while the annual cost of operating a bus is at least $300,000 a year. Acting Chair Ratto requested that the letters be read into the record by Staff Bergman: Submitted by Chair John Knox White: "The Line 63 is already not meeting the needs of its current riders. The delays on the line have created a sporadic and unpredictable service, causing usability to diminish. Before any changes in routing are considered for a specific portion of the line, priority needs to be given to providing Alamedans with a service that meets its schedule. This means removing up to four minutes of run time, or adding another bus. Given AC Transit's current finances and current proposed losses from the State totally $7 million this year, and $5 million a year in perpetuity thereafter, increase in the operational cost of the line by 25% should only be considered if service cuts elsewhere will not take place. If staff's comment is correct, other service improvements in Alameda, such as extending the Line 51 to Fruitvale should be identified for what the additional $300-500,000 could provide. "Line 63 already makes an incredibly circuitous route, making the line difficult to use for riders heading to Oakland from west of Webster Street. Adding run time should only be done in connection with the implementation of other service efficiencies. With regards to Otis versus Shoreline, AC Transit should identify the ridership potential for both Otis routing of the Line W and Shoreline routing of the Line 63. It makes sense that the same routing should be used for the two lines. We should know the ridership potential for all lines on both streets. We need to be aware of the cost effectiveness of the switch if it entails adding another bus to the route. Staff should determine if the additional ridership can offset adding an additional bus. At an annual fare box recovery of $875 per full-fare, five day a week rider, 342 new daily riders would be needed to fully recover an additional bus. "Staff should consider a two-phase approach if additional operational efficiencies cannot be found to make identified switches. Phase One: Keep the existing routing, install stops as per TC recommendation, and reduce overall runtime to meet schedule needs. Phase Two: Integrate Alameda Landing transit needs with Line 63, look at bifurcating the two lines in order to reduce scheduled run times to both west end and east end lines, and making routing changes identified at that time." Received from Ursula Apel: "Dear Members of the City Council and Transportation Commission: I was delighted to hear of plans to install a new Line 63 bus stop on Otis Drive near Lum School. My husband and I live on Kitty Hawk Road, so our closest stop now is the one at Whitehall and Willow, which has no sidewalk on the north side, and no marked crosswalk on Whitehall. I am in my 70s, and like many senior citizens, I find it much easier to carry groceries and other purchases home if I can take a bus for as much of my trip as possible. If there were a stop at Lum School, I would have only a short walk to my home, and a stop at Pond Isle would 4 | TransportationCommission/2007-04-25.pdf |