My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2017-04-25_PWETCPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
201x
>
2017
>
2017-04-25_PWETCPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/28/2017 9:21:58 AM
Creation date
6/28/2017 9:20:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
4/25/2017
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
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
81 Farebox Recovery Data from 2015 detailing service type and number of passengers; <br />82 and the productivity of light rail transit (LRT) that was proving successful, with <br />83 both the Green Line and Blue Line showing higher ridership than anticipated. With <br />84 the A -Line along Snelling Avenue, the first Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) installation <br />85 to -date, Mr. Thompson reported that was also performing well to -date, and <br />86 compared to the previous Route 84 service, initial performance levels and service <br />87 improvements showed significant improvements to the enhanced Route 84 and <br />88 combined A -Line BRT and Route 84. <br />89 <br />90 Mr. Thompson reviewed the Executive Summary for the Service Improvement Plan <br />91 covering service improvement plans for the near future based on daily comments <br />92 from customers and cities seeking additional service. Mr. Thompson reported that <br />93 there had previously been no one location to evaluate the request, including how <br />94 many riders and the cost of operations; with this plan developed as a result for <br />95 evaluation of all services, stakeholder comments, and a number of comments <br />96 received (page 2); all to serve as guiding principles to maximize ridership for any <br />97 investment in services. Mr. Thompson noted that all services in the document are <br />98 currently unfunded, and the intent would be to seek a priority list to emphasize <br />99 ridership and productivity, as well as to enhance connectivity with the remaining <br />100 transit system, and to consider transit -friendly land use design and improve transit <br />101 equity. <br />102 <br />103 Mr. Thompson provided specific Roseville routes proposed for improvement <br />104 within the community. As to future development and extension of the A -Line, Mr. <br />105 Thompson advised that the proposed ridership didn't justify the ridership level <br />106 needed for the financial investment, and ranked low until the former TCAAP site <br />107 developed and perhaps influenced that ranking. Based on past development <br />108 examples throughout the region, Mr. Thompson reported that a 2% to 3% increase <br />109 in transit ridership resulted from a new development. <br />110 <br />111 With the intent to update the plan document in 2019, Mr. Thompson advised that <br />112 they were now starting to look at transit services for the Cities of Roseville, <br />113 Shoreview and Arden Hills, and ideas to improve that service. While recognizing <br />114 that there are challenges, Mr. Thompson noted that there were also changes in the <br />115 communities since the 2001 study, and noted that the respective city comprehensive <br />116 plans would also guide changes in transit service. Mr. Thompson noted that it <br />117 allowed re-evaluation for possible improvements, and advised that Metro Transit <br />118 would look to those cities to guide it on this small area service plan project. <br />119 Therefore, Mr. Thompson stated that they would appreciate receiving guidance <br />120 from the cities on today's routes and service and whether it was still appropriate, or <br />121 suggestions for possible route changes and/or service levels. <br />122 <br />123 Mr. Thompson noted Member Lenz's concerns with limited frequency now, noting <br />124 that was another part of the process based on cost analyses, including cross-town <br />125 routes in the past and those currently in place. With the possible exception of the <br />126 Lexington Avenue route, which had been added as part of the expanded theme, Mr. <br />Page 3 of 14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.