TRANSIT ON THE MOVE LIAISON GROUP MEETING #3

March 29, 2005, 5:30 pm - 7:30 pm
University of Arizona University Services Annex Building, 220 West 6th Street

Meeting Summary

1. Introductions

Freda Johnson, Meeting Moderator, Rillito Consulting Group, welcomed everyone and invited Liaison Group members, staff, consultants and visitors to introduce themselves.

Freda reviewed the meeting ground rules, noted the availability of observer comment forms and asked the Liaison Group if the January 13, 2005 meeting summary was acceptable. The summary was accepted as written.

2. RTA Update

Tim Ahrens, Regional Transportation Authority Manager, presented an overview of trends for the next 20 years. He provided information on travel and traffic projections, cost and funding issues as well as federal, state and local funding sources. Jane McCollum, Main Gate Square Businesses/Marshall Foundation asked if Tucson receives its fair share of state transportation funds given the amount of unincorporated area in Pima County. Tim responded that the state distribution system favors unincorporated, non-jurisdictional areas in transportation revenue sharing. Tim also explained how the RTA is organized, which includes a Citizens Advisory Committee as well as a Technical Management Committee. Fiore Iannacone, Downtown Independent Merchants, asked if the Liaison Group could recommend to the RTA how funds could be raised for Transit on the Move. Tim said that statutes prohibit funds other than sales tax to raise funds for RTA transportation projects. Tim also noted that the legislature helped Pima County and Tucson get their fair share, and that Phoenix actually shares their transportation dollars with the rest of the State. Twenty years ago, the Phoenix area passed an excise tax and built a transportation system based on taxes that were imposed within Maricopa County only. Ellen Adelstein, Catalina Vista Neighborhood Association, commented that she thought Tucson did not receive its fair share of state transportation funds. Tim explained that Pima County receives more revenue when compared to population than does Phoenix. Ross Bryant, Campbell-Grant Neighborhood Association, asked when the vote to approve the ½ cent sales tax would take place. Tim answered that the election will be in May 2006. David Bachman-Williams, Bicycle Advisory Committee, asked why the sales tax increase is only ½ cent. Tim explained that the statutes allow only a ½ cent increase, but, additionally, the general thought is ½ cent is about the maximum amount that the voters would approve. David also asked if this project could use the existing railway rails. Tim noted that the railway is under the auspices of private ownership.

3. Tier 1 Conceptual Screening Evaluation

Marc Soronson, SRBA, Consultant Project Manager, reported that the FTA has implemented a stricter criterion to advance a New Start project into preliminary engineering and is requesting comment on other proposed changes that will make it tougher to achieve FTA funding for New Start projects. He stressed the need for this project to propose the smallest piece that can maintain a strong cost effectiveness rating, Guidelines for Small Starts programs have not been established since the Small Starts program is still being debated in Congress. Matthew Taunton, SRBA, reported on the technologies and alignments proposed to advance to the Tier 2 evaluation. He said that the Tier 2 evaluation will be presented in April or May. Each technology and alignment was ranked high, medium, or low. Fiore asked why points were not assigned to each technology or alignment. Matthew answered that options were eliminated that had little support or had technical problems. The Technical Advisory Committee, the consultant team and staff, and the Liaison Group all provided input into the Tier 1 evaluation process. Matthew presented the technology evaluation results with the pros and cons of each. The results were:

Rapid Bus Circulator – Medium rating
Historic Trolley – Low rating
Modern Streetcar – High rating

Pat Dunford, Old Pueblo Trolley, asked why heritage trolleys were left out of the evaluation. Matthew said that heritage trolleys were included in the historic trolleys category. Joseph La Mantia, Grant Road Neighborhood Association/Iron Horse Neighborhood Association, noted that in Seattle historic trolleys are put on the tracks during weekends and in Portland historic trolleys are used in off-peak hours.

Matthew reported that the Rapid Bus Circulator and the Modern Streetcar (with auxiliary use of the historic trolley) would advance to Tier 2. The TAC approved this recommendation on March 3, 2005. Pat commented that it seemed as though heritage trolleys were not given separate consideration from historic trolleys and were taken out of the process. She explained that heritage trolleys have wider doors and an elevator that drops down for loading and unloading. Marc replied that low floor vehicles provide rapid loading and unloading, which does not slow down the operation of the system. He mentioned that Sun Tran is in the process of purchasing 40 low floor buses. Richard Franz, Pima Community College, asked where the goal of rapid ingress and egress originated. Marc answered that the system needs to move large crowds quickly, especially during special events and at high volume boarding sites. Richard also asked if the rails used for the Modern Streetcar are compatible with the historic trolley. Matthew answered that the historic trolley could run alternately with the modern streetcar. John Sedwick, Fourth Avenue Merchants Association, asked if the evaluation criteria are based on what the federal agency considers. Marc said that two of the most important criteria are ridership and cost. A question was asked about the capacity of each system. Matthew noted these figures were shown on charts displayed on the wall. Ellen Adelstein noted concern about the speed with which passengers will have to load and unload the Modern Streetcar, given the aging population of the Tucson area. Mathew said that the Modern Streetcar doors will not close on passengers and are also more compatible with strollers, wheelchairs and walkers because there are no stairs or elevation changes, which eases movement on and off. Gene Caywood, Tucsonans for Sensible Transportation, commented that he didn’t want historic and heritage trolleys to get lost in this process. He would like to see trolleys operate on a regular basis. He stated that the trolleys should be part of the system and given operational funds to provide more trolley service.

Freda Johnson asked the Liaison Group if the technology recommendations were acceptable. The group agreed with the technical recommendations of advancing the Rapid Bus Circulator and Modern Streetcar to Tier 2.

Matthew continued his presentation with the alignment recommendations. The results of the alignment evaluation for the ‘A’ Segment (Fourth Avenue to Rio Nuevo) were:

Alternative A1 light blue – High rating
Alternative A2 purple – Low rating

These ratings assume a two-way street system through downtown.
For the ‘B’ Segment (Fourth Avenue to UMC):

Alternative B1 and B2 red and yellow – High rating
Alternative B3 blue – Low rating
Alternative B4 green – Medium rating

Matthew reported that Alternatives A1, B1, B2 and B4 would advance to Tier 2. John Sedwick noted that B4 (Sixth Street to Campbell Ave.) misses the Main Gate and half of Fourth Avenue. Robin Steinberg, Feldman’s Neighborhood Association, commented that a combination of B4 and the trolley would serve both Sixth Street and Fourth Street/Main Gate areas. She also asked if there are current bus routes similar to B4 and B1/B2. Marc responded that Sixth Street is more of a commuter corridor and that the trolley is not capable of consistent headways running all day. He also said that Sun Tran route #1 follows a similar route to B4. David Bachman-Williams asked about the operation of couplets, noting that in Portland this seemed to work well. Matthew responded that Portland’s streets are laid out in a grid pattern for miles. Their couplet system works well because they run parallel just two blocks apart. Ellen Adelstein commented that B3 should be considered, as the University is expanding to the north and this option picks up the business and law schools as well as pharmacy, nursing etc. Marc said that the Second Street routes also pick up these facilities by connecting with the pedestrian underpasses. Jane McCollum noted that the University does not want to build more parking and there is a lot of student housing along the B1 and B2 routes. Ross Bryant, Campbell-Grant Neighborhood Association, asked whether more alignments would be considered if the Rapid Bus Circulator is chosen as the technology. Marc said that whether the Rapid Bus Circulator or the Modern Streetcar is chosen, additional streetscape improvements will be considered. Doug Crockett, Tucson Unified School District, asked about the difference between B1 and B2. Matthew explained that B1 avoids the Main Gate intersection while B2 serves the Park and University intersection.

Freda Johnson asked the Liaison Group if the alignment recommendation were acceptable. The group agreed on the recommendation that Alternative A1, B1, B2 and B4 be advanced to Tier 2.

4. Campbell Avenue/Grant Rd. Alignments

Marc reported that at the request of some Liaison Group members the team examined the issue of extending the tracks along Campbell Avenue north to Grant Rd. Three scenarios were considered. The first scenario involved a double track along the west side of Campbell Avenue. Marc noted concerns about access in and out of the Jefferson Park Neighborhood as well as the turn-around at the north end. The second alternative involved double tracks in the median. Marc said this worked pretty well except when turning onto Campbell Avenue. Southbound traffic would have to be stopped. In addition, left turns out of Catalina Vista Neighborhood would be precluded. There would also be pedestrian crossing problems. The last scenario considered was putting the tracks in both the west and east side curb lanes. This would decrease the street capacity in addition to impeding left turns across the tracks. In order for the trains to turn around, all Campbell Avenue traffic would have to stop. An overall concern Marc mentioned was the location of a Park and Ride lot near the Grant Rd/Campbell Avenue intersection. Joseph talked about the concerns of ridership generators. A question was asked about the definition of an activity generator and who would use the service from Rio Nuevo to UMC. Joe explained that Rio Nuevo, the University of Arizona, downtown, the Ronstadt center all provide ridership for the new transit system. Marc mentioned that one criterion for the funding is economic development. He also said that the evaluation of the Campbell Avenue tracks should be kept for another time. He said it is a good idea, and once the other segments have proven to be successful, Tucson can look at adding more segments. Joseph LaMantia said that he did not think that neighborhood associations would support a route on Campbell Avenue. Robin Steinberg voiced concern at the lack of a serious way for people to commute and that too many projects are organized around cars. Ross Bryant suggested starting out by combining technologies by providing a feeder service. Marc stated that the ¾-mile segment would add approximately $25 million. Richard Franz asked if the analysis done on Campbell Avenue helped determine how to deal with tracks ending at UMC. Marc said the analysis exercise helped them look to the future and integrate future expansion to the plan. Gene Caywood commented that he hoped that Campbell Avenue segment would be done sooner rather than later. He also said he thinks there is plenty of money to do the extension project. Marc said that the project should stay small to increase the chance of obtaining federal support. John Sedwick was excited about the simplicity of the project, as opposed to other projects that had became too complicated to implement. Marc suggested putting the topic of the background bus system (SunTran) on the Liaison Group’s next meeting agenda. Claire Fellows, South Park Neighborhood Association, asked if the University of Arizona had commented on the Campbell Avenue/Grant Rd. segment. Marc answered that the University had an opportunity to review and comment at the Technical Advisory Committee meeting March 3. David Bachman-Williams emphasized looking seriously at the Campbell Avenue segment sooner rather than later, including the Rapid Bus Circulator. Ellen Adelstein agreed that planning a comprehensive transit system should be done sooner but she also agreed with Joseph LaMantia that the neighborhoods might not be excited about having a rail on Campbell Avenue. Robin Steinberg reiterated the possibility of having a Rapid Bus Circulator where the Modern Streetcar ends.

Freda Johnson asked the Liaison Group if they were satisfied with consultant team’s analysis of the Campbell Avenue/Grant Rd. alignment. The group was in agreement.

top ^

5. UA Vibration Analysis

Hugh Sauermann provided an overview of his interviews with University researchers about the effect of vibration on their laboratories and experiments. Hugh noted that he hoped to identify research facilities sensitive to vibrations and understand issues. Doug Crockett asked how vibration is measured. Hugh explained that most vibration is below damage threshold. He said there is not much vibration with lightweight systems that move slowly like modern streetcars. John Sedwick said he has been reassuring tenants that the Modern Streetcar will not damage the historic buildings along Fourth Avenue. Hugh said that most building damage is caused by settling. Noise vibration usually does not cause building cracks.

6. Next Steps

Marc reported that Tier 2 will provide more detail on the alternatives. Recommendations that advance to Tier 2 will be posted on the project website. Tier 2 analysis will include cost, ridership projections, and vibration analysis results. During the Open House at the University of Arizona, a request was made to have testimonials from Portland made available. A short video was shown of students, teachers and faculty commenting on the benefits of the Modern Streetcar system in Portland.

The meeting adjourned at 7:45 pm.

Note: The power point presentations are available on the downloads page.