CC Minutes - 06/27/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman expressed interest in knowing more about the other two PCE corridors. She noted that LTD was considering the PCE features for future corridors, so it almost sounded at though the PCE corridor was a precursor to a BRT corridor. Ms. Bettman spoke to proposed service changes, saying that it appeared stops would be further apart, which she acknowledged was characteristic of BRT systems. She asked how many stops would be removed from the existing route, and if the bus stops would be one-quarter mile apart. Mr. Carey responded that the southern part of the route, the LCC portion, had well-spaced stops at this time, about four per mile. On River Road, stops were currently about 1,000 feet apart. The River Road corridor had many pull-outs but probably only one stop would be eliminated from that route. Ms. Bettman found it interesting that the less expensive implementation reflected in the PCE project approach seemed to achieve many of the same objectives the council sought in BRT. Mr. Pap~ asked how LTD would measure the success of the PCE project. Mr. Viggiano said it should improve ridership by reducing travel time, and both ridership and travel time could be measured by LTD's automated systems to determine if that occurred. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Hamm confirmed it was LTD's plan to measure the success of the project using those systems. LTD would establish a benchmark for each route and for individual route segments, and could measure progress against those benchmarks. Mr. Hamm added that the intent of the PCE project was not necessarily to dictate where future BRT routes would be, but rather to float the "fixed-route boat higher." LTD had been experiencing a reduction in its ability to provide reliable service due to increased congestion, additional property egresses and ingresses, the growth in the number of signals, etc. Signal priority could save four or five minutes in a corridor and help LTD avoid the deployment of further resources to maintain the same level of services while allowing LTD to offer its patrons a reduced travel time. Mr. Pap~ asked about the vehicle to be used on BRT routes. Mr. Hamm responded that the representative of a manufacturer that produced a vehicle similar to the one LTD had contracted for had recently visited Eugene. He shared pictures of that manufacturer's vehicle. He reported LTD contracted with New Flyer of Canada and Minneapolis. Mayor Piercy solicited a second round of comments and questions. Mr. Kelly expressed concern about LTD's service frequency. He said that 10-minute headways appeared to make a significant difference in people's use of transit. He maintained that LTD was "backsliding" on service frequencies on existing major corridors. For example, the 11 Thurston bus route was running at 15- minute intervals, as was the Breeze shuttle. He asked what could be done to improve service frequencies. Mr. Kelly noted the River Road/LCC route is supposed to run on 15-minute frequencies rather than 10- minute frequencies, which "gave him heartache" and did not represent an improvement over the current LCC service, which ran at a mix of 15- and 1 O-minute intervals. Mr. Eyster responded that many factors erode bus running times. Without the PCE project, LTD would be losing ground in that regard. He thought the PCE project was the only way to address that issue without adding more buses and drivers, which LTD was not currently in the position to do. The PCE project was a way of slowing service erosion. Mr. Hamm MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 27, 2005 Page 6 Work Session