2013-03-26_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

number of vehicles operating on a particular route, available resources and how they're invested; and the importance and heavy use of connections to Rosedale. Overall, Members and Mr. Thompson concurred that the proposed plan provided significant improvements for Roseville Further discussion included "night owl" service (Route 16); Snelling Avenue identified as the #1 route for the rapid bus (BRT) service out of the twelve (12) introductory routes proposed by 2015; new technologies for tagging passes for riders and off-bus fare collections at enhanced bus stops with vending machines to facilitate speeding up the process; and how circulator routes could be coordinated to get riders further into Roseville beyond the concentration on Rosedale. While understanding how critical the need was for additional circulator connections, Mr. Thompson advised that given cycle times and routes, he didn't think a circulator through Har Mar Mall was realistic at this time, without the need to transfer. Additional discussion included the Cleveland Avenue and County Road C, and the Rice Street/Highway 36 Park& Rides, along with impacts in closing the Rosedale Park& Ride by transferring those vehicles to one of those new facilities; Routes 260 and 264 to facilitate those operations and connections; increased ridership when service was expanded to accommodate rider times and needs; and tracking by Metro Transit of vehicles through license plate surveys; remaining use of the Grace Church parking lot as another Park& Ride option for up to 150 vehicles; and the smaller lot at City Hall. At the request of Member Gjerdingen, Mr. Thompson addressed Route 83 specific to Lexington Avenue and Como Park, and the various issues involving that route. Mr. Thompson reported that a point of discussion had included extending service off Lexington to the OVAL in Roseville as well. Mr. Thompson advised that Lexington Avenue through Como Park was very curvy and didn't provide safe sight distances for bus stops beyond one (1) at the fountain approximately half way through the park; and since no one lives at the park, but there were a number of residents north of the park, consensus had been that it was more prudent to run the line as proposed. While Mr. Thompson admitted that some people may benefit, the typical reasons for people to use transit (e.g. income, auto ownership, population density) were all considered, with the conclusion that twice as many people would be within walking distance of the chosen route for Lexington. While some people to the north and east of Como Park may be further from the designated route proposed. Mr. Thompson stated that overall more residents would benefit. Chair Vanderwall thanked Mr. Thompson for the interesting and informative presentation and written report for additional review; and confirmed that it was available for the public on line at metrotransit.org. Page 4 of 14