My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 2A: Approval of Minutes
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2005
>
CC Agenda - 07/25/05 Mtg
>
Item 2A: Approval of Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:30:33 PM
Creation date
7/21/2005 9:04:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
7/25/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Ms. Bettman expressed interest in knowing more about the other two PCE corridors. She noted that LTD <br />was considering the PCE features for future corridors, so it almost sounded at though the PCE corridor <br />was a precursor to a BRT corridor. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman spoke to proposed service changes, saying that it appeared stops would be further apart, <br />which she acknowledged was characteristic of BRT systems. She asked how many stops would be <br />removed from the existing route, and if the bus stops would be one-quarter mile apart. Mr. Carey <br />responded that the southern part of the route, the LCC portion, had well-spaced stops at this time, about <br />four per mile. On River Road, stops were currently about 1,000 feet apart. The River Road corridor had <br />many pull-outs but probably only one stop would be eliminated from that route. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman found it interesting that the less expensive implementation reflected in the PCE project <br />approach seemed to achieve many of the same objectives the council sought in BRT. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap6 asked how LTD would measure the success of the PCE project. Mr. Viggiano said it should <br />improve ridership by reducing travel time, and both ridership and travel time could be measured by LTD's <br />automated systems to determine if that occurred. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. <br />Hamm confirmed it was LTD's plan to measure the success of the project using those systems. LTD <br />would establish a benchmark for each route and for individual route segments, and could measure <br />progress against those benchmarks. <br /> <br />Mr. Hamm added that the intent of the PCE project was not necessarily to dictate where future BRT routes <br />would be, but rather to float the "fixed-route boat higher." LTD had been experiencing a reduction in its <br />ability to provide reliable service due to increased congestion, additional property egresses and ingresses, <br />the growth in the number of signals, etc. Signal priority could save four or five minutes in a corridor and <br />help LTD avoid the deployment of further resources to maintain the same level of services while allowing <br />LTD to offer its patrons a reduced travel time. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap6 asked about the vehicle to be used on BRT routes. Mr. Hamm responded that the representative <br />of a manufacturer that produced a vehicle similar to the one LTD had contracted for had recently visited <br />Eugene. He shared pictures of that manufacturer's vehicle. He reported LTD contracted with New Flyer <br />of Canada and Minneapolis. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy solicited a second round of comments and questions. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly expressed concern about LTD's service frequency. He said that 10-minute headways appeared <br />to make a significant difference in people's use of transit. He maintained that LTD was "backsliding" on <br />service frequencies on existing major corridors. For example, the 11 Thurston bus route was running at <br />15-minute intervals, as was the Breeze shuttle. He asked what could be done to improve service <br />frequencies. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly noted the River Road/LCC route is supposed to run on 15-minute frequencies rather than 10- <br />minute frequencies, which "gave him heartache" and did not represent an improvement over the current <br />LCC service, which ran at a mix of 15- and 1 O-minute intervals. Mr. Eyster responded that many factors <br />erode bus running times. Without the PCE project, LTD would be losing ground in that regard. He <br />thought the PCE project was the only way to address that issue without adding more buses and drivers, <br />which LTD was not currently in the position to do. The PCE project was a way of slowing service <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 27, 2005 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.