pages: TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf, 12
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2007-10-24 | 12 | Staff Khan recalled that was an interim recommendation until the Transit Plan was developed or implemented. Staff Bergman noted that the Transit Plan mentioned 1,000 feet as an approximation, and that it did not establish a minimum. Chair Knox White noted that in terms of Line 63, the subcommittee seems to have recommended that the current line did not work. He agreed that ridership should be the primary goal on this line, and that unreliability would destroy ridership on this line. He agreed that either a new bus should be added, or that certain stops should be cut. He noted that City Council did not rule on the appeal when they heard it in March, and asked for more information. He noted that the Transportation Commission would recommend that this issue return to City Council for a final decision. He hoped that any decision would support ridership and reliability on Line 63. Chair Knox White noted that a primary concern was the safety issue in front of Lum School, and was not personally convinced that a bus stopping in front of the school is a major safety issue. He noted that there was clearly a problem with respect to the use of the roads in front of Lum School. He did not believe there was a need for four lanes of traffic along Otis. He suggested that any motion sent to City Council should ask them to prioritize looking at Otis between Westline and Park, and to redesign the road, possibly to three lanes to shrink the crossing distance. He supported moving the bus line to Shoreline, and added that it may need to happen as part of a longer term plan for rerouting. He supported asking AC Transit to examine the ability to interline that route. He would like to know whether run time could be found within the route. Chair Knox White noted that eliminating the East End Loop along High Street, Encinal and Fernside was rejected because of the ridership of 50-60 riders per day. He found the subcommittee recommendation rerouting near Encinal to be problematic. He was willing to support the Monarch Loop cut, and noted that segment jeopardized ridership along the entire route of the rest of the line. He described Line 63 as an ugly transit route, making frequent turns. He suggested bifurcating the line, which may allow for better, more usable transit. He would be willing to support a conditional motion stating that the Transportation Commission supported moving the line to Shoreline if interlining will allow for an incremental increase in the cost of the line. He emphasized that the 63 must run on time and reliably once the changes have been made. Commissioner Krueger endorsed the cut to Monarch, and recalled mentioning St. George, and found that to be a difficult decision. He noted that he had attended several events at St. George and used Line 63. He was curious about the ridership stemming from the temp work staff, and noted that there was no way to fix the line without finding time and thereby cutting pieces of the route off. Commissioner Schatmeier noted that he had been emphatic at the subcommittee level about not adding another bus. He noted that timing was a critical component, and stated that if they could identify changes to the route that would make the expenditure of the additional bus worthwhile, rather than just adding a bus to preserve the schedule, he would like to see a chance to make the case of adding another bus to serve places that are currently unserved, and gain additional riders. He did not support the strategy of adding another bus to this route on an interim basis. He disagreed with staff's findings in that regard, and strongly advised against adding another bus on Transportation Commission Page 12 of 19 | TransportationCommission/2007-10-24.pdf |