pages: TransportationCommission/2009-02-25.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
TransportationCommission | 2009-02-25 | 7 | relatively few recommendations affected Alameda, and that many of the difficulties affected the portions of the line in Oakland and Berkeley. The options for service modifications were a major part of the report, including the possibility of splitting the route into two different routes; possibly having a limited and local service; or the creation of alternating A and B stops. Cory Lavigne, District Service and Operations Planning Manager, noted that the report contained a robust public outreach process. He noted that they would like the input of the Transportation Commission before commencing the public outreach process. He introduced Puja Sarna and Sean Diest Lorgion from his office, who wrote the document. Puja Sarna noted that this route was the source of most of the complaints received by AC Transit. Sean Diest Lorgion presented a PowerPoint presentation on the overhead screen, and described the route. He noted that Line 51 was one of AC Transit's most important routes, and the most heavily used, with close to 20,000 daily riders, almost 8% of the total district ridership. The service operated virtually around-the-clock, covering 13 miles, with service every 8 minutes during peak hours, every 10 minutes during the midday, and every 20 minutes during the evenings. There were roughly 80 stops per direction, providing great accessibility for the passengers. He noted that it generally operated at 9 mph in the PM peak hours, at a daily average of 12 mph; some segments were 6-8 mph. He noted that there was large variability in running times, and that the buses frequently bunched up. He noted that the goals of the task force were increase travel time of the route, improve service reliability, increase passenger comfort, while retaining riders. He noted that they conducted point checks to calculate running time along the route, and that the variability in running times made it difficult to write a schedule for Line 51. Puja Sarna noted that with respect to route-wide improvements, AC Transit recommended having signal coordination along major corridors where it didn't already exist. They also suggested moving bus stops to the far side of signalized intersections so the bus would not catch two signal cycles. They recommended queue jump lanes, so the bus could bypass traffic queued up at a traffic signal, at locations such as the Tube entrance. They recommended having protected left-turn phases, such as where the 51 turned left from Webster onto Santa Clara. They also looked at stop removals and stop spacing issues. They recommended maintaining the appropriate parking restrictions at bus stops to allow the bus to enter and exit the bus stop, and to allow easy boarding and alighting from the bus. They recommended keeping bus stops clear of obstructions, such as garbage cans and newspaper racks that should be placed in appropriate places. Passengers will be encouraged to move toward the end of the bus and alight from the back door. They recommended using a prepayment program at three to five major bus stops to streamline boarding. Ms. Sarna noted that with respect to reliability, one option was to have a dwell point in the middle of the route so the bus can reset a schedule without irritating the passengers. She noted that another option to reduce running time was to implement a "limited" service, which would stop approximately every three bus stops; this would replace a portion of the local service. She noted that the A/B option was two buses that would stop at alternating stops, although both would stop at major stop locations. She noted that the A/B option had the drawback of making Page 7 of 12 | TransportationCommission/2009-02-25.pdf |